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

DNS and X.501 DistinguishedName

A network entity such as a router may require
an X.501 DistinguishedName to utilize LDAP
directory serices or generate PKCS certificate 

It's possible that the network entity can
use it's domain name to create an X.500
Distinguished Name as specified in RFC2247.
However, I'm concerned that this might be too 
inflexible since many organizations may
implement an internal X.500 naming convention
unrelated to their Internet domain naming.

Has any MIB work been done to support 
distinguished name configuration?

Thanks in advance,
Eric Bomarsi
From ???@??? Wed Jun 24 08:17:15 1998
Received: by mis01.reston.cybercash.com; id JAA16715; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:15:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by callandor.cybercash.com; id JAA21478; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:14:53 -0400
Received: from blacklodge.c2.net( by callandor.cybercash.com via smap (3.2)
	id xma021471; Tue, 23 Jun 98 09:14:49 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by blacklodge.c2.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) id GAA24867 for spki-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: blacklodge.c2.net: majordom set sender to owner-spki@c2.org using -f
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:59:56 -0300 (EST)
From: Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>
To: SPKI <spki@c2.net>
Subject: Understanding trust
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980623095942.5243v-100000@laser.cps.softex.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-spki@c2.net
Precedence: bulk

An updated version of the paper "Towards a Real-World Model of
Trust: Reliance on Received Information" is available at

This work presents an implicit definition of trust which allows any
number of compatible explicit trust definitions to be derived
specifically for each application area such as communication systems,
digital certificates, law, linguistics and social uses. 

The paper presents more than thirty of such equivalent instances, and
discusses their general formation rule for qualitative as well as
quantitative uses of the concept of trust. The paper also compares
and contrasts trust with auditing, belief, surveillance, risk,
insurance, information, meaning, accountability, etc. 

Comments an possible counter-examples are welcome.


Ed Gerck

Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
    --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---