RE: A philosophical question about large directory structures

No SET is not like this.  It is designed to handle 3 party transctions.
Customer, Merchant and Bank.  
Search for SETCO or look at the Visa site.
I cite it by analogy, that there are real-world killer global applications
out there to be solved driven by large multinational corporations.
Also that they developed protocol *and* services to solve business problems,
rather than protocol for its own sake.
(The problem they have is logistics ie how to get 'wallets' out there and
used by 'joe public')


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:	Zahid Ahmed [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent:	Thursday, June 24, 1999 9:42 AM
> To:	Andrew Probert; '[email protected]'; [email protected]
> Cc:	[email protected]
> Subject:	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
> > > 
> > > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> >