Re: Low-fat leaf certificates

[Denis Pinkas <Denis.Pinkas@xxxxxxxx>]

Anders,

Your E-mail got burried under hundred of other E-mails. Sorry for the delay to respond.

You misunderstood my talk. I am advocating against numerous extensions to certificates that could be
handled generically by "administrative" certificates that contain information valid for a large number of
leaf certificates.

So the topic you address is unrelated.

Regards,

Denis


> David,
> Just to make sure that you don't misunderstand me:
>
> I am VERY much in favor of your "Low-fat leaf certificates".
>
> That is what CyberPhone is all about.  A CyberID SUBJECT is
> supposed to consist of just two items:
>
> 1)  "Name"  (an alias/friendly name [as you are allowed to change name without changing "e"-identity])
>
> 2) "dnQualifier"  (a static [probably random] unique identifier in the domain)
>
> It is hard to get much slimmer than that!
>
> But a "low-fat" cert may have a "fat" cousin cert that does the dirty work in the
> rare situations that requires it.  And if they can share a common format life will
> be simpler than if all "fat" data has to be handled "out-of-band" instead of in
> nice "structured signed and certified containers of data"
>
> Regards
> Anders
> http://www.mobilephones-tng.com