Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"key authentication" and relation to claimchain/coniks? #28

Closed
hpk42 opened this issue Apr 20, 2018 · 0 comments · Fixed by #36
Closed

"key authentication" and relation to claimchain/coniks? #28

hpk42 opened this issue Apr 20, 2018 · 0 comments · Fixed by #36

Comments

@hpk42
Copy link
Collaborator

hpk42 commented Apr 20, 2018

as @hhalpin rightfully noted yesterday, we need to change terms to better match crypto language.

key authentication (as opposed to key verification) is probably what we actually want to talk about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_authentication

I used "key verification" because that's how Coniks describes itself in the first sentence of their paper. How does "key verification" relate to "key authentication"? cc @carmelatroncoso @gdanezis

Note that on the UX side we might stick to "verified" in any case, as that ties into the "verified" status of twitter: https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-verified-accounts

@hpk42 hpk42 changed the title use "key authentication" instead of "key verification" ? "key authentication" and relation to claimchain/coniks? Apr 20, 2018
@hpk42 hpk42 assigned hpk42 and unassigned hpk42 May 2, 2018
hpk42 added a commit that referenced this issue May 4, 2018
the document structure and some phrases.
hpk42 added a commit that referenced this issue May 4, 2018
the document structure and some phrases.
@hpk42 hpk42 closed this as completed in #36 May 4, 2018
hpk42 added a commit that referenced this issue May 4, 2018
Fix #28 -- reorder sections and talk about key consistency
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant