Thanks for the response! I'm glad you have similar interests in this.
I have some responses inline:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM, elijah wrote:
> If I read correctly, a few of your main points are:
>
> (1) We need well defined and expanded trust metrics
> (2) Everything would be better if we
Werner Koch:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:15, pa...@cs.ucsb.edu said:
>> And of course the last issue is finding a sane way for user's to store
>> and use private keys. Hence the PSST project and the eventual idea of
>
> PSST? That used to be the working title for a free implementation of
> ssh back
Yup, Sovereign Keys is awesome. I hadn't looked it up since thinking
more about the importance of having a single mapping but on a quick
re-read I understand it as follows:
Sovereign keys has a very strict requirement for changing this mapping
as domain names should. ie. Only a key revocation can
Hi Patrick,
Have you seen EFF's Sovereign Keys project? It attempts to establish a
distributed single-mapping database of cert <-> domain.
Also see the schemes in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015, altough they
create new handles rather than try to capture existing ones.
___
