Since a person's public key is guaranteed unique (or there's a serious flaw
in the key generation algorithm), I fail to see why the DN portion of the
[DN,key] pair needs to be unique.
I could be mis-reading this exchange. [I must admit that I lost interest a
while ago and am just skimming it now.] However, it sounds a little like
one which flares up on sci.crypt every once in a while:
(1) There seem to be people who believe that "identity" rests in a human
body and that there needs to be a hierarchical way to identify that body
uniquely -- and that that (DN) is the fundamental identifier while all else
(eg., public keys) are secondary.
(2) Then there are those of us who believe that any name is OK -- and since
a public key is unique, that's all we need -- and all else is secondary
(including the name I call myself).
I'm sorry if I've brought up a useless point -- but it does feel like an
argument based on premise (1), a premise I believe to be unnecessary.
- Carl
- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
- Carl Ellison
cme(_at_)sw(_dot_)stratus(_dot_)com
- Stratus Computer Inc. M3-2-BKW TEL: (508)460-2783
- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298 FAX: (508)624-7488