Thank you for such a frank response, Peter...I read someone's archived
post that you should be a "protected world resource" (?). I realise I
could have emailed you directly about this a while back, but I really
wanted to get the opinion of other people unrelated to SPKI
development/advocacy.
It took me a few months to find out how to get on this list (a bit of a
convoluted process for me to finally figure out), since I thought this
would be the best forum of informed people to get a valid response.
Seems like yours would be the definitive response...but I am kind of
hoping for others' opinions as well.
It's a pity if SPKI is not used just because it's not X.509.
Peter Gutmann wrote:
Jay Listo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am also not aware of any products or PKIs that use SPKI certs. I would
really appreciate if someone could refer me to instances of actual usage of
SPKI certs.
They were never really used. The great feature of SPKI is that it's not X.509
(so it's a design fit for a purpose rather than being digital ancestor-
worship of failed OSI standards from the 1980s). The great failing of SPKI is
that it's not X.509 (it's impossible to get any cert mechanism accepted unless
it's called X.509).
Peter.
