Re: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization

True. The problem is that without some kind of management scheme you 
might just find yourself having too many little secrets all over the 
place. And should you go from job to job or ISP to ISP how would this 
work? Is this a client side solution?

Chuck

Madscientist wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] 
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Seems like a lot of what you get with a cert. This is almost the 
>>approach I took with the design I did. I can tell you it works 
>>and works 
>>well.
>>
>>Chuck Wegrzyn
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks for that. The thing I feel most strongly about concerning this
>type of "consent" and/or "identity" mechanism is that certification
>mechanism should be open, decentralized, and entirely in the control of
>the end users. Unlike certs, which usually require some centralize
>authority for a signature, simple shared secrets can be created and
>destroyed entirely at the behest of the user groups involved and require
>no cost beyond that effort. 
>
>(It is possible to have certs signed by some elected member of the
>group, or to self sign, or to elect some local authority for the local
>COT, however the entire cert discussion tends to add unnecessary
>complexity I think.)
>
>_M
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Asrg mailing list
>Asrg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

Re: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm