1997-01-08 - Keyserver Draft

Header Data

From: “David K. Merriman” <merriman@amaonline.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 48e8f4ebfb35f32033c72085e8abf41a43e26f9598b28872e6979775b6726bac
Message ID: <199701081428.GAA11007@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-08 14:28:30 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 06:28:30 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "David K. Merriman" <merriman@amaonline.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 06:28:30 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Keyserver Draft
Message-ID: <199701081428.GAA11007@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Wed Jan 08 08:39:12 1997

Having gotten the subject in the spotlight (!), I'd like to clarify a couple 
of points about my draft proposal:

1: it is aimed at supporting _automatic_ realtime - as in supporting 
crypto-aware email packages, so that if an unknown key turns up, the 
encryption program can go out and collect key data _without_ user 
intervention.

2: port "assignment" was arbitrary; if the protocol would work better with a 
single port for send/receive, then "make it so, Number One" :-)

3: I expected that data transfer would work best using ascii text (like 
ascii-fied keys); if something else would work better, so be it.

4: if checksums or other error-detection/correction isn't necessary, then by 
all means, leave it/them out.

I offered the draft as a _proposal_, fully expecting that it would require 
modification, editing, revision, et al. I'm not sufficiently 
pompous/egotistical to believe that I am He Who Knows All.

Too, I have a reasonable idea of my own limitations; I'm simply trying to 
establish *some* kind of common reference point toward a solution of 
something I see as a possible problem. Happily, I haven't received any 
_personal_ flames, the comments I've received have been 
professional/technical. If I get a brownie point or atta-boy out of this, 
cool. If not, that's fine, too, _as long as the problem is addressed_.

I didn't dare propose anything so grand as a distributed system - it seemed 
that a variation of DNS would handle that.

We return you now to FlameFest '97 :-)

Dave Merriman


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMtMI1sVrTvyYOzAZAQH5fgP+M5kJntTNM+LWd67jt+WGoiGLq8SdRwCa
0MljMYuO0oMzgiTrMTchNaj+cxtVkyUrzz+cgj3XQdJF6cdRlDnSW9xGV9rJJC/B
lPf6RD9Vp5Pih9KkqWc+DqKMynGzEm1WXvNZKHDtn3/1etkv0RsEeQejqdNG+5dI
rfZhi4xp9mk=
=1Pcn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






Thread