>From: TCJones(_at_)MIL(_dot_)NCSC(_dot_)DOCKMASTER
>Subject: Register Some Respect
>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 20:52 EDT
>If there is to be ANY registration of DN's it will be in X.500
>directories (or possibly CA's). There simply is NO OTHER PLACE to
>register them. This constant effort to re-define perfect good English
>words to suit the speaker's concepts is really disconcerting and, I
>would posit, counterproductive.
I _can_ (now) follow Marshall's argument from which one may deduce that
the act of writing your childs name in a birth-"register" is the process
of going-about listing that name. The process of registering is
something else. We know that, these security syntaxes are but references
to civil structures already existing. Therefore registration must be
an analogue of listing -- in that complementary "official" aspect of
this civil activity.
I dont therefore see why name uniqueness is required now (!). All
authoritive statements are available only by reference to the
established means of conveying authority. There is thus no reason
why I should not be listed by any pseudonym. Why should the
certificate issuer care? Her liability is limited by maintaining
a unique public key bound to the registered identity, sealed in
wax.
Under this logic, one cannot both have a need for naming authority, and
a divorced function of registration, where only registration is
authoritative of itself. As someone vehementely said once before, all
that is needed then is a unique key pair. All authority belying proof
services is represented in the paperwork. A nice name just makes that
easier to find, perhaps.