Re: what do you mean by *that*?!!?

Hi,

Thomas Lord <[email protected]> writes:

> A symmetric topic arose recently in the Scheme world
> in the context of something called "SRFI-84".
>
> Here is my reply:
>
>   http://dasht-brk.livejournal.com/23779.html?mode=reply

Tom: I really like your answer, I find it enlightening, and I agree with
your griefs against reliance on global, uncontrolled, names.

The proposal at the end of your reply reminds me of SPKI/SDSI's
name spaces, described at the beginning of:

  Clarke et al, ``Certificate Chain Discovery in SPKI/SDSI'', 2001,
  http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/ClarkeElElFrMoRi-CertificateChainDiscoveryInSPKISDSI.ps

The idea, roughly, is that each one can have identifiers in their local
name that may be bound either to a name in another person's name space,
or to some value (actually, a public key).  Such a binding is called a
``name'', precisely.  Everyone can issue ``name certificates'' for their
local bindings, that is, cryptographically-signed descriptions of the
bindings.

Thanks,
Ludovic.