[E-Lang] Hash Chaining & Capabilities, Proposal #2d:Deputizing Remote Vats

Ben Laurie ben@algroup.co.uk
Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:56:32 +0000

"Mark S. Miller" wrote:
> At 03:14 AM Friday 12/29/00, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >"Karp, Alan" wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know what "secret based bearer certificates" are, but I never heard
> >> the term while working on e-speak.
> >
> >Well, just reading the words, a secret based bearer certificate would be
> >one that is anonymous (i.e. the fact you have it proves you have the
> >capability it refers to) and uses a secret (and, presumably, therefore,
> >an HMAC or similar) to verify it, as opposed to using some form of PK.
> >Which would also imply that there must be a third-party verifier (which
> >may not be true in the case of a PK based bearer cert).
> Having just now read this thread, a brief clarification (until I have
> the time to be more long winded, probably later this week).
> Ben's guess is wrong, or rather, is not what I meant when I introduced this
> terminology.  However, what Ben means is also interesting, and we need to
> ensure it doesn't get lost when we fix the terminology.  So I propose that
> we call the one I was talking about "Frantz Bearer Certificates" or "FBC"s
> (if that's alright with you, Bill), since it started with a suggestion from
> Bill.  And that we call these others "Laurie Bearer Certificates" or "LBC"s
> (if that's alright with you, Ben).

Well ... I'm really in favour of terminology that actually tells you
what a thing is, so let's see if we can't work out a way to do that -
but first, I need to know what you meant in the first place...

BTW, I trimmed the CC list, so I hope everyone is on this list...




"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff