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.
The closer an IETF activity gets to humans and social activities, the less it
seems to be possible to indulge in the view that the computer perspective is
what counts.
Comments, so far, have tended to stress both the generality and the
computer-side orientation of the DIX work, with an apparent lack of focus on
specific human uses.
From my own experience, it is not possible to raise flags that are higher or
more red.
I wish this did not sound quite so reminiscent of the original X.500 work.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
