[cap-talk] Implementing a crypto brand: What are the security requirements?
david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Mar 23 22:04:40 CDT 2007
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)
More information about the cap-talk