Re: Security requirements for identification

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On onsdag, sep 24, 2003, at 09:49 Europe/Stockholm, Pekka Nikander 
wrote:

> Does this analysis help?

I think it does raise / point out some interesting facts on what can / 
can't be properties of identifiers.

> Do we have other choices but the four outlined above?
> Should create an I-D from this and the previus message? If so,
> should it be accepted by some WG as a working item?

I have two question to the WG, and especially to the DT chairs and the 
AD :

1) Would we consider it useful to have a WG document on properties of 
identifiers, in terms of security? Maybe even call it "Security 
requirements"? From Tony's ad-hoc poll, there seems to be a clear 
majority in favor of some sort of id/loc split, with reservations on 
what each of them really is.

2) Do we think we could get rough consensus around such a document? In 
some other words, the WG will still of course be free to choose not to 
adapt a document by Pekka. But as the discussion following Tonys 
question showed, there are very different views on what an identifier 
is/might be. I think we at some point need to start to narrow this 
down. This is of course part of what the DT's are working on, that is 
why I also ask the DT chairs if they would consider this helpful.

I do realize that such a document will have to make certain assumptions 
on what an identifier is. But I also think that might be issues we 
could sort out as the DTs present at we get better understanding.

Ok, so....<making room in mail folder>...:-)

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP3MH/KarNKXTPFCVEQIynwCfVBjy3u+XYMtC+49r2Q9PmmaKatIAoMQR
sxP4p9jm4KBzA3SkeUYhj84y
=dT/c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----