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

Re: 'trust' discussions

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Steve Bellovin wrote:

>Folks, we've been getting rather far afield from the topic of the
>spki list.  We're supposed to be designing a specific protocol here.
>While occasional digressions about the "meaning" of what we're doing
>are fine, of late such discussions have overwhelmingly dominated the
>content of the list.

May I respectfully comment.

The recent thread was initiated by Carl, as well as some of the other
threads on the general matter of trust. Perhaps, such discussions
about trust which Carl and others (including myself) have been
probing here can serve three useful purposes:

1. Lint SPKI terminology from such pesky word (which is noticeable)

2. Show that trust is presently ill-defined (which is also evident)

3. Show that just sense is not enough, one also needs meaning

where (3) is in IMO.

Where, perhaps, item (3) can help prevent problems that may result
from overly-variable concept overloading, as presently done, where
the very word "trust" is used with conflicting meanings in the
specific protocol being designed.



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