• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] [ Next ]
• [ Previous ] In reply to: Marc Stiegler

At 03:31 PM 11/1/99 , Marc Stiegler wrote:
>...the thing used as a public key is really a write
>authority, ...
>For me personally, talking about it as write-authority ... is
>much clearer than talking about it as a public-key-encryption analogy. ...

I believe there's a fatal problem with this approach. The seal operation doesn't *write* anything -- it is completely side effect free. As is the unseal operation. The seal operation *creates* something that only the unseal operation (with the corresponding unsealer) can read. So what did my previous message mean about an encryption key being "write authority on a virtual communication channel"? Creating sealed envelopes and tossing them into a broadcast medium is effectively writing the communications channel represented by the unsealer's ability to unseal, since the traffic is opaque to everyone else. The only object we can be said to be "writing", this virtual communications channel, is not reified as an object. I think it would be disastrous to lead with this explanatory direction.

Btw, two other explanations of logically equivalent sealer/unsealer notions are available electronically:

Dean's ftp://www.agorics.com/pub1/agorics/postscript/MANUAL.B17.ps.Z

and Rees's http://www.mumble.net/jar/pubs/secureos2.html

Perhaps we can borrow some of their explanation?

         Cheers,
         --MarkM

[ Next ]
• [ Previous ] In reply to: Marc Stiegler