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

Re: Auth

At 09:46 AM 4/1/97 -0500, David P. Kemp wrote:
>Thank you, Jon.
>
>I agree that the meaning/intent of SPKI would be *much* clearer if the
>word "certificate" was replaced by "assertion".

I thought Jon was advocating "assert" in place of "auth".

There remains the open question of whether to have 1 labeled object or
4 and what to label them if we have multiple ones.

Of course, I don't want to see these questions remain open very long.
I hope to resolve all these at Memphis.

>I also agree that "attribute" is a better name for a field in an SPKI
>assertion than "auth", but there may be some who feel that attribute
>sounds too X.509-like :-).

At this point, I don't sense much sensitivity in the group in the form of
making sure we're not accused of being X.509-like.


+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|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        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
References: