|
RE: German Key Usage: msg#00258ietf.x509
Paul, No disrespect taken. I understand the difficulties of developing for interoperability in the current environment. As naive as it may sound, I would prefer to have several of each form of key, scores of them in fact. Systems should allow that some suffice for multiple application usages, others not so. I look to the future, envision a "smart-card" with numerous keys. Inserted into a device suitable for certain types of transactions, it would give me a readout of that subset of keys which suffice for the transaction at hand. It may not allow me to do data encryption with a signature key, for instance, or warn me if entering into a high- value transation with a key whose certificate is soon-to-expire. I want to move away from the "one-key-is-me" world-view. I have too many facets to want or need to share them all, even by indirection, in every type of transaction. I should not have to prove who I am in order to use public transportation, for instance, and yet if I pay via my one-account-key-certificate, I am in essence providing the world a trail of crumbs by which to trace my activities. This is why hard- currency is still popular, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. (enough of my ranting;) ___tony___ At 04:56 PM 8/17/98 -0400, Friedrichs, Paul wrote: > Aram, Tony, > > I hope my responses haven't sounded disrespectful. If so, I > apologize. We, here, have been trying to implement a completed > standards-based PKI, and frequently hear people from the PKIX or > the FedPKI camp specifically challenging the initiative with > conflicting interpretations of keyUsage. On top of that, a primary > aim is providing a service that supports existing products. > Frustrating, but we're trying. > > Regards, and thanks, > > Paul > > Tony Bartoletti LL SPI-NET GURU LL LL Computer Security Technology Center LL LL LL Lawrence Livermore National Lab LL LL LL PO Box 808, L - 303 LL LL LLLLLLLL Livermore, CA 94551-9900 LL LLLLLLLL email: azb@xxxxxxxx phone: 510-422-3881 LLLLLLLL |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usage: 00258, Bob Jueneman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usage: 00258, Peter Gutmann |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RE: German Key Usagei: 00258, Bob Jueneman |
| Next by Thread: | RE: response to unauthorized OCSP reques: 00258, Graham Bland |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |