On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 01:44:38PM +0900, Michael Richardson wrote: > You are using the word "registry", but it's a registrar. The > different in the word is perhaps subtle, but very significant.
Yes, it is and I'm sorry for mixing the terminology. However, either of them should be better distributed to achieve a good level of autonomic networking. > And, the centralized nature of current PKI implementations is an > implementation limitation, not an architectural limitation. > > The architecture supports talking the nearest registrar which is > functioning. There are PKI implementation challenges with > partitioning of the PKIX SerialNumber space (which must be unique), > but it's a solved problem. This is a good point, and considering this with some constraints imposed to the implementation, it could conform a proper mechanism even for the highly dynamic scenarios (as the disaster scenario I mentioned before). Regards, Pedro -- Pedro Martinez-Julia Network Science and Convergence Device Technology Laboratory Network System Research Institute National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) 4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795, Japan Email: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------- *** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem *** _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
