[glue-wg] Endpoint.TrustedCA and ComputingEndpoint.TrustedCA Inconsistency in GFD147

[JP Navarro]

A smattering of points:

An advantages of a flat rendering is that it's fairly trivial to define new entities that describe reserved words/strings/enumerations so that clients can look them up and discover what those strings represent.

Could these strings be a hash of a DN?

Does IGFT have unique names/IDs for their accepted CAs?

How many TrustedCAs are we thinking might need to be published for each endpoint, and how much data is that really?  Do we think it would significantly impact the performance of our information systems to publish multiple collections of TrustedCA strings?

On a side note, I wonder if anyone else on this list is familiar with Persistent Identifiers (PIDs)?
http://www.clarin.eu/faq/technical-infrastructure/persistent-identifiers-pids-0
I've been pondering where PIDs might not be useful to define enumerations

JP

On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Florido Paganelli wrote:

> Let's say there is recommendation in the renderings that tells to
> put a string there, overriding the GFD147 specs.
> 
> Say you have a this reserved word there: IGTF. How is a third party
> client supposed to know the meaning of it? where to look for such
> strings? What kind of algorithm to deduce which are the CAs entitled?
> 
> Note: The type of TrustedCA is currently not even a open enumeration.
> 
> A solution might be to change the type of this attribute in the
> realization documents to have an open enumeration that clearly defines what are the CAs entitled.