Dave Crocker wrote:
"who you are" is a reasonable place to begin, but does not have quite
enough substance to direct technical work. For example, the
difference between a person performing in one role, versus another,
might or might not require different identities. It might even
require some sort of identity "hierarchy".
I think this is a rat hole that we don't need to go down.
Users do just fine with multiple 'identities' given to them, or assumed,
for whatever tasks they need to perform. We do not, for example,
get worked up because my state drivers licence does not refer
to my country passport number (and in my case the two are
issued by different countries which I'm sure makes for an interesting
hierarchy).
Yes, all of these issues have been discussed in specialized circles
for some decades.
The issue I am raising, here, is that the engineering work to be
pursued here needs to list specific choices for these things and has
to have community agreement on those choices.
So, before there is any discussion of formats and protocol rules,
there needs to be an understanding of the capabilities and constraints
of the construct "identity" used for this work.
I think this is a red herring. It is not necessary to define what humans
mean by 'identity' for this work.
Instead all we need to do is define what the computers that implement
the DIX protocol mean by
'identity' : a much easier task IMHO.
I believe that all we need to know is that one identity needs to be
differentiated from another one
and that we have 'stuff' that belongs to each identity.
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
