At 00:22 28/02/2006, David Boreham wrote:
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.
I joined your debate only for a few days, so may be this is something you discussed and already killed?
For me a network identity is an information that entity A can send to entity B so entity B can uniquely, surely, reliably, consistently and permanently identify and internally document entity A among all the Internet entities, and possibly to carry an authentication. If possible without leaking any information on entities A and B during the process. I think there also should be the requirement that entity B can pass that information onto entity C and that entity C is then able to uniquely, etc. identify entity A.
I have no prerequisite about entities being a human, a machine, an application, a relation, an event, an information object, etc. or their avatars. However the entity carrying the identification must be able to process it (human or computer). Also, I tend to think that the best identity system is not protected, to reduce the risk of errors. Also, I think it should be as much as possible independent from any particular network technology.
The avatar issue (an entity having several different identity roots) is, IMHO, addressed by the identity consistency and permanence. The difference between persona and avatars I make is that a persona is a variation of the same identity root. An avatar uses another non related indenty root. An avatar can have different personas.
jfc _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
