Sent from my iPad
On 13 feb. 2012, at 19:54, Ted Hardie <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/2/13 Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>: >> Hey Ted, >> >> yes, I should have been more precise. >> >> Here is the current definition of "unlinkable sessions": >> >> Definition: The term "unlinkable session" refers the ability of the >> system to render a set of actions by a subject unlinkable from one >> another over a sequence of protocol runs (sessions). >> >> This definition talks about the "system" and it should rather talk about >> eavesdroppers instead. >> Better wording may also be needed since I just created it when I updated the >> most recent draft version and I couldn't really find something else that >> worked nicely. >> > > > If you updated to say "render a set of actions by a subject > unlinkable by either party or eavesdroppers > over a sequence of protocol runs (sessions)", does that meet your > intent? Or do you mean a more limited > form? > > Note that when I think about the subject've view as a party, the > property I expect is that the subject knows > that they are linked, but could not prove it based on data from the > protocol sessions. I guess there is still another case, that of the inability of the identity asserting party to know what entities the subject has a protocol run with. Example, I may have to show ID to get a beer, but the passport authority doesn't know I bought a beer. Klaas > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > _______________________________________________ > ietf-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
