[cap-talk] Implementing a crypto brand: What are the security requirements?

[David Hopwood]

Tyler Close wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> It'll take me awhile to digest the crypto part of your message, but in
> the meantime I need clarification on another part.
> 
> On 3/23/07, David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>Tyler Close wrote:
>>
>>>Correct. I renamed this attribute to label and changed its type to
>>>String to better communicate that this attribute does not offer any
>>>guarantees that can be relied upon.
>>
>>Changing the type to String prevents the use of private (i.e. closely
>>held or anonymous) Brands. I don't see any good reason to do that.
> 
> I don't understand how this change prevents the use of private (
> sealer / unsealer ) pairs. Please elaborate.

I didn't mean private (sealer / unsealer) pairs; I meant private labels.

Suppose that you want to make sure that a label is distinct from any label
that some other code might be using. The obvious way to do this is to use
a Token as the label.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood at industrial-designers.co.uk> (note new address)