On 19-Jan-06, at 8:32 AM, Peter Davis wrote:
In moving identity information between parties it is expected that
the messages of the protocol will include elements that bind property
names and values to digital identities. How a digital identity is
referred to is an important consideration. The properties an
identifier could have are that it allows the user to concurrently
maintain multiple personas, that it could allow for a separation
between the digital identity and the identifier and that it allow for
separation between the identifier and the user’s agent. In the
interests of flexibility and interoperability we would suggest that
the identifier be a string of characters. This working group may
consider current best practice of what that string might be. For
example, a URL or a UUID.
How about simply that it is in scope to establish a 'uniform
addressing
mechanism', such as a URI.
To which piece of the above does that apply? The last three sentences?
The term 'addressing' worries me a little. That might just be a knee
jerk reaction from me though, based on my LDAP experience. A
key aspect of any information/data model is the separation between
addressing things and identifying things. In LDAP the DN was
both, which caused me lots of pain trying to solve the distribution
and replication problems... which lead to adding the entryUUID
attribute, so that we had immutable names for entries....
(I could ramble on for hours about that...)
I'd be happier with 'uniform naming mechanism', which could be a
URI... people may want something other than an URI.
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
