John Schnizlein wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > >> On 27-Feb-06, at 1:46 PM, 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 see that people will have many personas, but only one identity. Each >> persona presents a different facet of themselves. > > Slippery slope alert! > > This statement seems to mix the every-day meaning of identity with the > formal definition that is necessary for technical progress. What is the > precise relationship between a persona and an identity? Who gets to > know that relationship?
There is a document that defines all the terms you could need for this discussion, and then some. I'd suggest we don't argue over terminology and just adopt it: "Anonymity, Unlinkability, Unobservability, Pseudonymity, and Identity Management - A Consolidated Proposal for Terminology" which can be found here: http://dud.inf.tu-dresden.de/Anon_Terminology.shtml Incidentally, it defines identity like this: "An identity is any subset of attributes of an individual which identifies this individual within any set of individuals. So usually there is no such thing as “the identity”, but several of them." The word "persona" does not come up at all. Which is probably a good thing. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
