Re: Summary, was Re: Every time ..., was Re: General formula

All,

>This really has gotten out of hand. I admire the dedication of folks who have been applying serious intellectual effort to creating a general >formula for cert lifetime as a function of the number of attributes, but ...
>
>As the creator of "Steve's Rule of Revocation" I have to admit that I generated the simple inverse square formula just to make a point, i.e., that, >in general, adding attributes to a cert will shorten it's effective lifetime and thus is generally a bad idea.

I agree with Steve here. I think this horse is dead now, and I resolve to stop arguing these points.

>As some have pointed out, a general formula is hard, since one can cite examples whwre added attributes are so closely linked to existing >attributes that the addition has no real effect on expected lifetime. Also, contributors to this thread pointed out early on that it is the attribute >with the shortest expected lifetime that governs the lifetime of the cert. So, trying to express the lifetime in terms of a pure attribute count >seems futile.
>
>Now, if I had to justify my original formula, I might try the following analogy:
>
>1. Adding attributes to a cert is a generally bad idea. In vernacular terms, it "sucks."
>
>2. Looking to physics for an analogy, we note that, in the vernacular, gravity "sucks."
>
>3. The inverse square law applies to gravitational attraction between bodies.
>
>4. Therefore, the effective lifetime of a certificate is inversely propotional to the inverse square of the number of attributes :-)

She's a witch! She turned me into a newt! (I got better)

--bob

Bob Blakley (blakley@dascom.com)
Chief Scientist, Dascom