RE: A philosophical question about large directory structures

Could SET be used for peer-to-peer communication
such that organizational certificates can be
used and/are accessible via a directory server
containing SET certs. does such a directory server
exist?

Also, where is the SET certificate specification?

thanks,
Zahid


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Probert [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 3:56 PM
> To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: A philosophical question about large directory structures
> 
> 
> The killer app is again networking machines and devices and ecommerce!
> 
> Take a look at what Novell, Microsoft, Netscape, CISCO are 
> all doing in
> network management that is
> LDAP based and / or modelled on X.500.  Devices are 
> relatively private.  The
> information you need to know about devices 
> is too dense to be supported in DNS only.  Devices don't care 
> about privacy
> too much.  They have funding.
> 
> Take a look a SET type ecommerce.  (Please don't raise the SET is dead
> argument).  50% of credit card
> chargebacks are due to Internet and rising so the funding 
> engine is there,
> all they need is the right deployable solution.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Andew Probert
> Rotek Consulting   http://www.rotek.com.au
> a Division of Secure Network Solutions
> Tel  +61 3 9690 8877
> Fax +61 3 9690 8171
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Leslie Daigle [SMTP:[email protected]]
> > Sent:	Thursday, June 24, 1999 12:00 AM
> > To:	[email protected]
> > Cc:	[email protected]
> > Subject:	Re: A philosophical question about large directory
> > structures
> > 
> > Howdy,
> > 
> > [Harald wrote:]
> > > My feeling is that it won't happen until someone creates it, and
> > > nobody
> > > will create it until someone wants to pay for it. Up front.
> > > 
> > > Who do we expect to pay?
> > > And why will they?
> > 
> > I think that, whenever we (IETF) delve into the question of 
> "who will
> > pay", we've wandered out of our realm of effectiveness.
> > 
> > I interpret your question as:  there is a general feeling that
> > a unified directory service would be a Very Useful Thing, and
> > as finding a funding model seems to be the impediment, 
> let's talk about
> > the funding model.
> > 
> > The problem is that protocols don't have funding models, services
> > do.  The IETF doesn't do services (much), it does protocols.  So,
> > I question what can be usefully discussed on this front before
> > a seemingly-useful service comes into existence (more opinions on
> > that, elsewhere).
> > 
> > Alternatively, a global directory of so-called whitepages 
> information
> > may be brought into existence if it is required in order to support
> > some other piece of service infrastructure -- a global directory
> > of machine names was developed when it was needed in order 
> to support
> > interconnections of machines.   This putative directory may have
> > very little to do with serving up e-mail addresses to the casual
> > user; but perhaps we should be considering instead what IS the
> > "killer app" of directory service information, where is this going
> > to be developed, and what should be done to better service it?
> > 
> > Leslie.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > 
> > "What are the potential gains, and               Leslie Daigle
> >    why do they weigh so much??!"                 
> [email protected]
> >             -- David Holmes
> > 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>