[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: Sheer El-Showk <sheer@saraf.com>
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From: Martin Oldfield <m@mail.tc>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:23:18 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102141842390.24130-100000@laudanum.saraf.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-06 [Was Re: Interim Meeting]

>>>>> "Sheer" == Sheer El-Showk <sheer@saraf.com> writes a splendid
>>>>> email in which the benefits of assigning each object in the
>>>>> registry its own key are discussed. (I hope that's not too great 
>>>>> a misrepresentation.)

I think there are two other disadvantages of this approach when
compared to a scheme in which `contacts' (for want of a better word)
authenticate themselves, and access rights are confered on the basis
of the inter-object relationships.

1. Typically the registrant will have a whole bunch of objects in the
   database. If each one of these has its own key, then I think most
   registrants will get confused. 

2. Concentrating on the case of a domain being transfered for a
   moment, I think giving the domain its own key makes this harder. If
   registrant A sells the domain to B, then after the sale A really
   shouldn't have access rights. If the access to the domain is
   controlled on the basis of its contacts then all well and good; if
   its on the basis of a public key then one needs to ensure that all
   the key management happens in synchrony.

Cheers,
-- 
Martin Oldfield,
AdamsNames Ltd.


Home | Date list | Subject list