[cap-talk] Capabilities - the rub, an account

[John Carlson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>
> When we get to the network level of communication of permissions, I  
> really
> don't see how any sort of identity/ACL based approach can work.   
> Something
> like communicable permission tokens (capabilities) seem inevitable  
> to me.
> Can we get the desired tracking, management, visibility, and  
> auditability
> at that level?  Many (most?) on this list don't even seem to feel  
> that network
> level capabilities are an important issue.  I think that may be  
> another issue
> keeping the object/capability from getting traction.

It's important to me.  I want to be able to say who has permission to  
put something
in my email inbox.  Requests for permission should go elsewhere.  If  
spam gets
put in my email inbox, I want to know who leaked the permission and   
be able to
revoke it.  I'd like to discuss how to allow a mailing list such as  
this permission to
put something in my email inbox--this probably means that everyone on  
this
mailing list needs to have a permission to send to the mailing list.

Obviously, a lot of this can be done with GPG...why aren't we using  
GPG?  I'm
sitting here using Mail on MacOSX.  I installed GPGMail etc, and it  
seems to
be working.  Can we track people's public/private key usage behind a  
capability?
Can the capability hold the passphrase, so it doesn't have to be entered
every single time?

Jed, I know that you gave some hope that public key encryption or  
similar would
potentially be used as capabilities.  Do you think that these could  
be used
to provide tracking, management, visibility, and auditability?

John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFXUzr5YNwhxymDAMRAnFeAKDOoOKuWZQId65bmyuTHQZX1A9I1gCgrZ8j
odbkMvj9lv9MLdfEvFc5mQE=
=G58L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----