[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
>>Many people feel otherwise. They feel that the centralization degrades
>>security because it erects a single point to attack and introduces a
>>third-party into transactions that would otherwise only involve two.
>
>
> If A and B have already got a trust path, then sure it's only two. If
> not, then someone has to act as the TTP (trusted third party) that
> vouchsafe's A's identity to B and vice-versa. Fewer trust anchors is a
> priori easier to manage than more trust anchors.
There are two issues Roger is solving.
1:
> The RDDL document is a
> directory for the namespace. That is, it contains pointers to
> documents that you wish to associate with the namespace. Such
> documents include schemas, stylesheets, dictionary, spec (all the
> things that my client
> wants associated with a service in his registry).
2:
> "Since there is not a central registry to look for services, how do I
> locate services in a RDDL-based architecture?" Use a
> search engine! You may desire to create a search engine that is
> customized to your domain
The search engine is the trusted third party. But in the decentralized
design, you do not depend upon it any more than you have to. Once you
have be introduced to the other party you go to THEM for metadata and
services, not to the engine. If the engine dies after you have been
introduced, you don't care anymore. UDDI doesn't really have this idea
that you could get (e.g.) a TModel from anywhere other than the
centralized registry. If it had been designed properly, the data types
would have been designed independently of the UDDI API and UDDI would be
just a way of querying these generally useful document types.
Paul Prescod
|
