[ga-full] RE: [ga] Registration process suggestion

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 10:09 AM 2/14/2000 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > I did not say that no mechanisms or services existed.  I said there was no
> > large-scale USE.
>
>Without marketing/demographics data, which neither of us are either privy to
>(or are free to publish) your statement is unsupported. I still maintain
>that it is false (understood - such statement is equally unsupported).
>However, you might try Forrester's.

The nice things about using the term "large-scale" in the context of the 
Internet is that measuring achieving it is usually obvious to most any 
observer.  Simple questions like "is there any indication that average, 
non-technical users employ it regularly or easily -- and particularly 
between people in different organizations?" permit gauging the scale of use.

In the case of Internet authentication obviously has not achieved truly 
wide-scale deployment and is, most certainly, not easy to use, except with 
quite a bit of administrative hand-holding for non-technical users.


>I agree with the non-email requirement (email vs persona). It is also a
>problem with PGP. PGP only secures the individual message. With a PKI,
>it -might- also provide verification of the end-points of a communique.

The trust models, security boundaries, etc. are pretty much the same for 
PGP and S/MIME.  Suggesting that PGP does not have a "public-key 
infrastructure" is a bit strange, and even stranger to suggest that adding 
one somehow expands the scope of the objects being protected.

To the extent you mean that employing a third-party key certification 
structure is significant, yes.  It permits making stronger statements about 
the protection of the data, relative to the third-party authority.  But it 
does not change the scope of what is being protected.


> > > > For that matter, there is no large scale use of open, encrypton-based
> > > > authentication services.
> > >This is true, iff you emphasize the term "open".
> > That is exactly the point.  ICANN participation is open.
>
>... apples and oranges, Dave. ICANN is not a technology and authentication
>services are not a would-be governance organization.

The reference to ICANN being open means that the security technology must 
interwork among a very diverse and independent set of people.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

Gong Xi Fa Cai   /  Selamat Tahun Baru Cina

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html