I think of 'digital identity' as one word. I'm not hung up on defining
'identity'.
The X.500/LDAP universe of discourse worked fine without drilling into it.
By way of suggesting a line of discussion:
I think that the X.500 world has not worked all that fine at all, except within
very constrained environments. The scale and diversity of the open Internet has
been a notable failure for the X.500 world, although that was its original ta
The Internet Identity Workshop has
been kicking all this stuff about for a while. I'd rather this group focused on
the technical realization of an architecture for user-centric digital identity.
That presumes an Internet community consensus about both the meaning of the term
identity, as it will be used here, and the architecture for it.
I haven't noticed either present in the IETF arena, so I suspect you have some
educating to do.
In my Identity 2.0 talk[1], I describe Identity as being who you are. This is a
"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".
Yes, all of these issues have been discussed in specialized circles for some
decades.
The issue I am raising, here, is that the engineering work to be pursued here
needs to list specific choices for these things and has to have community
agreement on those choices.
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.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
