[cap-talk] On revocation and the use of wrappers in Defense of Identities

[Jed Donnelley]

At 02:24 AM 12/6/2006, Mark Miller wrote:
>On 12/5/06, Jed at Webstart <donnelley1 at webstart.com> wrote:
> >  I believe MarkM and I (I mention MarkM for credit and not for
> >  blame) have a solution for both Neal's concerns and for Jonathan's -
> >  though I despair of communicating this solution via email without
> >  a considerable additional amount of flap.  We discussed this topic
> >  extensively at HP last Friday.  Let me see if I can cut through some
> >  of the flap...:
>
>Hi Jed. I just read it carefully, and I think it's an excellent
>summary of what this protocol accomplishes. Thanks!

Great!  Thanks for taking that time MarkM.  I'm happy that we seem
to be able to refine, restate, and work this "responsibility tracking"
mechanism and find that it still seems to have legs.

>My apologies to the list for not yet having the protocol in a coherent
>form that can be posted. I hope to do so soon.

It will be nice to have at least one implementation to poke at
(particularly in a pure object-capability form as you have done), but
I don't think there's any particular hurry.  This problem doesn't seem
to be going away.

Heh.  I just took a second to reread the subject of this message.
It currently reads:

"On revocation and the use of wrappers and In Defense of Identities"

which came from a combination of the "On revocation and the use of
wrappers" subject from Neal Wakefield (if I tracked back through the
list properly) and the "In Defense of Identities" from Jonathan
Shapiro.

If I make the very slight modification of collapsing the "and In"
to "in" we get the current subject:

"On revocation and the use of wrappers in Defense of Identities"

which isn't a bad statement of what we're trying to do.

--Jed  http://www.webstart.com/jed-signature.html



--Jed http://www.nersc.gov/~jed/