>
> What it MUST include however, is the forest model. The reason for
> this is that the existing profile gives:
Several weeks into this discussion, I still have not seen a single
concrete use case that warrants this.
> As the profile stands now, with a choice of general DAG and
> concrete URI, I believe many customers will be unknowingly led into
> an insecure DAG, when a perfectly reasonable secure forest could be
> shown to be a clear alternative, with the extra cost, of course, of
> maintaining the membership in the original hierarchies, which is
> necessary to generalize the URI scheme.
>
I still have not seen a single compelling example why DAG is
"insecure" in any form. Applicable policy is entirely explicit, and
easy to analyze.
Daniel;
