From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 09:15:27 PST
To: cme@cybercash.com (Carl Ellison)
Subject: Re: A brief comparison of email encryption protocols
In-Reply-To: <v02140b17ad5bacd3a265@[204.254.34.231]>
Message-ID: <v03005200ad5cdf652707@[129.46.110.231]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The database size is really only half the problem I think.  The bigger
problem is managing the database.  I can't quite see it being possible to
have one organization serve as a distribution point for all keys. With
millions of billions of certs, you're going to have having thousands or
millions of database updates on a daily basis.

It does seem though that if you can truly eliminate revocations then things
get a lot easier.  You never have to go back a check with the issuer about
anything. This will probably work for some applications, but there's
certainly others for which it won't.

LL

At 2:21 PM 2/29/96, Carl Ellison wrote:
>At 12:01 2/29/96, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
>>I think a problem occurs when you have 20 billion of
>>these certs (two for every person in the year 2010 or such).  A simple hash
>>into a table isn't going to cut it because you a single database (with
>>replication?) isn't going to be possible.
>
>BTW, at the rate that memory gets cheaper and smaller, it might be quite
>reasonable to have that single database fit alongside your daily appointments
>in your shirt-pocket daily organizer and e-mail terminal, in 2010.
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|Carl M. Ellison          cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
>|CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430                   http://www.cybercash.com/    |
>|2100 Reston Parkway           PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
>|Reston, VA 22091      Tel: (703) 620-4200                                 |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+