Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity

<> Wed, 29 March 2017 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE67D127601 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.319
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y_9d8f-yQW2n for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE7E4129666 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;;; q=dns/txt; s=dtag1; t=1490769608; x=1522305608; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=mLO0FjHLHzuurozwdYn5nByqy5xJOsLTHDJSbXMFN8U=; b=pmgClrFNAyRxikpVIyWqzB68golr4/tOCkk2Qrq1K5RIzqkn09uCBH61 SDuihhknU1Adp61yeQgLqe4ahQlgVik/SoktPmRct3XE8ku29KbEmDm9w DDMr3cckELLtAyALeLJ6c/rwkDbY//uJWSBVQ4A1WwTCajPDaPe4KpHXN cbFbZjasNxNwA4CXhEbWCtYK9bfi8FFNYfxoQUMIoKYnMrry3uKyq/71j jnD+8spc8P6CmevlxkzLo2tdD48gGuIg7cEXNXVLfuPpDaIz/X8Zb9Njt K8iJrC4yuhfuuD80rgqcmcatTplUS54PGp5kvM6gYtG2u3kY1l6vcQd36 g==;
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Mar 2017 08:40:05 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,240,1486422000"; d="scan'208,217";a="1293407710"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Mar 2017 08:40:05 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:40:04 +0200
Received: from ([fe80::ad33:5cab:b687:e2c3]) by ([fe80::ad33:5cab:b687:e2c3%27]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:40:04 +0200
From: <>
To: <>, <>, <>, <>
CC: <>, <>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:40:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <etPan.58dae51d.6489b56.379d@localhost> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e64ae39f16584eb0b2f92afa490b70aaHE101655emea1cdstintern_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:40:12 -0000

E.g. 3GPP does not really distinguish between identity and identifier and use Id for both.

I would prefer to spell them out especially in a work that tries to further distinguish identifiers that are labels and identifiers that are addresses.


From: Ideas [] On Behalf Of Hesham ElBakoury
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:58 AM
To: Alexander Clemm;;
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity


I was actually thinking to use IDF for identifier, but in may of the projects I worked on, we used ID for identifier.


From: Alexander Clemm
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:54 PM
To: Hesham ElBakoury;<>;<>
Subject: RE: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity

I also think that ID is better used for identifier, not identity.

That said, it seems either way there is potential for confusion, so maybe we just need to bite the bullet and spell it out wherever possible.

In cases where abbreviation cannot be avoided, it may be a good idea to refrain from using "ID" at all (also avoid mixed upper/lower case).  IDT works for Identity, how about IDF for identifier (since there is no F in identity)?

--- Alex

From: Ideas [] On Behalf Of Hesham ElBakoury
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity

We can use ID for identifier, and IDn, or IDT for identity (although sometimes IDT is used for identity theft).

Sent from HUAWEI AnyOffice
From:Padma Pillay-Esnault
To:Robert Moskowitz,Padma Pillay-Esnault
Date:2017-03-28 14:54:43
Subject:Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity

Hi Robert

Thanks for our comment.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Robert Moskowitz <<>> wrote:
The Identifier/Identity definitions in draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-01.txt is a good start, it fails in the appreviations used. (There is NO abbreviation for Identity!)

Yes I see your point.

ID should NOT be the appreviation of Identitfier.  People will default to thinking 'Identity' when they see it.  Think about people outside our discussion group.

I propose 'IDf' for Identifier.  'ID' is too owned by Identity.

I feel in the past they were used  interchangeably depending on protocols which further muddles the water.
May be we should have IDy and IDr?

I will be working on proposed wording to improve these definitions.



Ideas mailing list<>