> -----Original Message----- > From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:41 AM > > > On 15-Mar-06, at 8:24 AM, BAILLEUX Benoit RD-BIZZ-CAE wrote: > > > > I feel quite good with this defintion, but I have 2 > questions about > > it : > > - do you want to define just "digital identity" or "digital > > identity exchange" ? > > - this definition seems to not imply that the "other party" can > > identify uniquely the issuing party. I mean that the initial party > > can provide a set of claims where nothing can be found that > > identify it. For example, a set of claims conveying geographical > > informations don't identifiy the party. I may be necessary (but I > > may be wrong or have misunderstood the needs) to add > something like > > that : > > > > Digital Identity > > > > Definition: The digital representation of a set of Claims made > > by one > > Party about itself or another Digital Subject. A least one of > > those claims > > allow one or more other Parties to uniquely identifies > the initial > > Party. > > I don't think you need that last sentence. I don't think you need to > uniquely identify the issuing party. I may just need to prove that I > am over 21, or part of Star Alliance. > > -- Dick
Ok. I suppose the goal was not well defined, or I misunderstood it. However, I understand that the required definition is not for "Digital Identity" (which, I persist to think, embed a notion of "uniqueness"), but rather for something like "exchange of parts of a digital identity". I am right ? A stable (but may be arbitrary, after all) definition of "digital identity" should be useful, when defining "exchange of parts of a digital identity". Shouldn't it ? -- BB _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
