On 1/19/2006 3:17 PM, "John Merrells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 user¹s 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? Yeah, the identifier part. > > The term 'addressing' worries me a little. That might just be a knee > jerk reaction from me though, based on my LDAP experience. But that is what you get whenever you make a string (even opaque) in some namespace. When I give my dog a name, it's really just virgil.peterdavis (using, at least, a DNS like delegation notation). This WG should not invent new identifiers. Use one of the (too) many we've got already. But I agree wrt the terms use here. s/address/identifier/; but we'll get both in the end. With the identifier alice, when asserted by foo, you kinda always end up with an address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or if you prefer alice!fred ;-) > 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...) Yes, I fully agree. We tend to overload the identifier with other duties. > I'd be happier with 'uniform naming mechanism', which could be a > URI... people may want something other than an URI. > That works too. =peterd (http://public.xdi.org/=peterd) _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
