[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on SPKI draft of 25 March 1997

At 01:33 PM 3/29/97 EST, Ron Rivest wrote:
>I suggest that the BNF have the five types as above, but that the actual
>syntax use the same object type for the last three, as SDSI does:
>	( ref <key-or-key-hash> name ) 			for <simple-name>
>	( ref <key-or-key-hash> name1 name2 ... ) 	for <fq-name>
>	( ref name1 name2 ... )				for <relative-name>
>and that the implementation check for the appropriate number and type of
>arguments (e.g. that there is a real key-or-key-hash when necessary, etc.)

I'd like to hear from other developers on this issue.  I agree with the need 
for these three, but I prefer having different object types for them, so 
that the determination of kind of object doesn't require a look ahead.

>Also: shouldn't the names allowed be general byte-strings and not just tokens?
>What if a Chinese user wants to give appropriate names to the public keys
>of his colleagues?  Shouldn't he be able to used unicode, e.g.
>	[unicode] chinese-name
>(or, following my previous note)
>	( display-type unicode chinese-name )
>instead of just tokens?

Yes, they should.

 - Carl

|Carl M. Ellison  cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc.                      http://www.cybercash.com/    |
|207 Grindall Street   PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103  T:(410) 727-4288  F:(410)727-4293        |

Follow-Ups: References: