Re: WG Review: Centralized Conferencing (xcon)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Harald,
>
>
> HTA> and should make no assumptions on
> HTA> whether the trust is rooted in Verisign or psg.com, or is brokered through
> HTA> a mechanism that doesn't need a single root for its trust mechanism.
>
> HTA> If "centralized conference control" doesn't mean that anyone with the
> HTA> required resources can be a center, I think we're on a very wrong path.
>
>
> The style of protocol needed for a single, centralized control
> mechanism, versus a distributed and cooperative control mechanism,
> typically is quite different.
>
> The obvious example would be centralized dns control -- as we now have
> for each node in the tree -- versus efforts to create multiple
> authorities for any given node, such as the root.
>
> Did you have in mind a way to reconcile this?

Different protocols ... Harald's only stipulation is that the protocol
shouldn't prevent anyone from creating a centeralized conference control
facility.

The distinction I see between centralized control and distributed control
is with centralized control, I must have a way to establish trust with the
control facility which I must trust to authenticate all other participants
in a similar fashion.  With a distributed mechanism, I must establish a
trust relationship directly with each participant.



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]