[Cryptography] DIME // Pending Questions // Seeking Your Input

[Peter Fairbrother]

On 02/03/15 21:37, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> p.34 "PART 5: SIGNET DATA FORMAT
>>
>> alma mater field
>> gender field"
>>
>> dick size field? Too damn many fields.
>
> Yeah, that's weird. When I read that, I am reminded of the origins of X.509,
> and the use of "natural names" in X.500. The idea at the time was to avoid
> creation of extraneous identifiers, and just pile on enough natural
> attributes to achieve uniqueness. If surname and first name do not suffice,
> add a city. If that does not suffice, add a zip code...
>
> There is beauty in keeping things simple. For a user signet, why do we care
> about more than the email address and the key? OK, I can see why we want to
> add some management fields, such as some form of expiry date and creation
> date. And maybe facilitate search. But that does not mean that the
> searchable attributes shall be structured. A "common name" type of field
> ought to be enough.


Agreed. All you need is enough data for senders to identify the person.

I kinda liked the image field too - treat it a bit like an icon. 
Optional, of course.

Plus whatever the cryptographic protocol needs. That should be enough.

And in general, that's all the data which should be in the signet, 
nothing else belongs there. There are reasons to put more data, eg 
things like snail-mail addresses, in some types of signets - but not in 
DIME signets.

-- Peter Fairbrother