| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
At 02:56 AM 27/04/2007, Rob Austein wrote:
At Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:04:13 +0200, Róbert Kisteleki wrote: > > > > b) the SIA value is not necessarily unique and two or more CAs can > > specify the same SIA > > Could you give an example of this situation? And the motivation for allowing it, please, as I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea.
Actually it was the original suggestion from Steve and Russ when we (George, Sanjaya and Geoff) were discussing repository models with them at an IETF meeting. Their advice at the time was to use a single repository structure as this would provide superior performance than a massive collection of dispersed repositories. We've spent some time refining the model of 1 CA = 1 publication point and one of the unanticipated outcomes is that we're looking at having to invent additional information exchanges in order to support a hybrid of the dispersed repository model where the distinct publication repositories are grouped together in a manner that tries to regain some of the leverage that would be obtained from a single repository model.
In thinking about this some more, the question is "is there any _forced_ reason why the SIA needs to be unique across all CAs?" I cannot think of such a reason - maybe RobK and/or RobA can, however.
Geoff
