Re: [saag] post-X509 cryptographic identities

["Derek Atkins" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, February 11, 2020 5:55 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
[snip]
> I think that the document would say a series of things:
>   The designers of X500/X509 intended X, but it turned out that this
>   did not happen, and instead PKIX did Y.
>
> (One could substitute X=DN, Y=SAN for instance)
>
> I think that it is important for any new identity system to recognize what
> forces pushed us away from the original vision.
> We made engineering tradeoffs based upon time, code, bandwidth,
> round-trips
> and threats.   Not every such decision is still justified.
>
> So this requirements document would essentially be some kind of loving
> criticism.

Should this document also include the history of other PKIs, such as SPKI
and/or OpenPGP's WoT?  I think it would be interesting to put an
historical contrast on the visions behind the various methods/standards
and perhaps try to document the reasons (if possible) that "market forces"
took us in one direction vs another.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [e-mail]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant