[cap-talk] Firefox and identifiability, small steps or large

Sandro Magi smagi at naasking.homeip.net
Thu Feb 10 10:16:07 EST 2005


> Now, PNML raises the notion that pet names can be
> transitioned via resource names in communication.
> I'm unclear whether that is best or a nickname is
> better.

I believe the referenced pet name docs state that the object can be
queried for a nickname, and that the pet name is not typically
transmitted.

> Secondly, I'm unclear on how you then stop the user
> typing in her pet name in the clear in some other
> context.  This is only an issue for security.  But, see
> PNML for the curious aspects of how pet names can
> be communicated and you should get my drift.

I'm not sure this matters; the pet name only has local meaning. It has no
power in and of itself.

> Now, getting back to your above comments, what is
> the third name?  Where is this written up?

It's mentioned at:
http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/pnml.html

See "Zooko's Triangle", then "Choosing Better Proposed Pet Names". Some of
those sections do still need to be filled in though.

> I know of no documentation that speaks of the notion
> that pet names expands to include logos and/or icons.
> Can you point me at it?
>
> This is a potentially serious issue of academic reference
> import.
>
> I've asked this question before, and got no answer.  I
> suspect what is happening here is that the pet name
> concept is more of shared knowledge than of written
> knowledge.

This seems to be the case if I understand you correctly. The logic
governing the system is what matters (security-wise), not the front-end
(names/words, images/logos).

Sandro



More information about the cap-talk mailing list