[cap-talk] On the importance of being "untrusted"

Sandro Magi smagi at naasking.homeip.net
Wed Mar 2 11:34:13 EST 2005


David Hopwood wrote:

> Tyler Close wrote:
>
>> On Mar 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Jed at Webstart wrote:
>>
>>> As with David Hopwood and as noted before, I prefer the notation 
>>> "unnamed" to "untrusted".
>>
>>
>> I suspect that you and David want to use the term "unnamed" because 
>> you want to name relationships, regardless of whether they are 
>> positive or negative relationships.
>
>
> No, I don't think that wholly negative relationships are worth naming.
> Relationships that are a mixture of positive and negative are, however.


I think the point is that the name should be associated only with the 
positive relationships (ie. explicitly what the named entity should be 
entrusted with), and that all other relationships are thus denied by 
default.

This coincides with Tyler's assertion that the name should be treated as 
an index into a capability list.


More information about the cap-talk mailing list