Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity

Why is this so important?

An Identifier identifies an entity. Can’t we move on to bigger fish to fry?

Dino

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com> wrote:
> 
> For many, the distinction is of small value or just perhaps confusing to them.  RFID is an example of confounding Identifier and Identity.
> 
> In Loc/EID work, the distinction is important.  With HIP, it is obvious, though it did take us some time to settle on HI and HIT.  In '99 in draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-00.txt, I called them HI and HIGH, but talking about them was challenging.  :)  
> 
> It was the -02 draft where we adopted HIT.  So I don't expect us, with generic naming, to 'get it right' the first time.
> 
> The distinction between Identifiers used for 'labels' or the more limited 'addresses' is potential constraints on Identifier construction rules.  There are other classes of Identifiers other than addresses that have constraining construction rules.
> 
> This is helping me work out the wording of defining Identifier and Identity.  I have talked around this for over 20 years and have written it down many times.  But almost always in a specific context.  Here I am striving for a general discussion of the two.
> 
> 
> On 03/29/2017 01:40 AM, Axel.Nennker@telekom.de wrote:
>> 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.
>>  
>> Axel
>>  
>>  
>> From: Ideas [mailto:ideas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hesham ElBakoury
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:58 AM
>> To: Alexander Clemm; padma.ietf@gmail.com; rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com
>> Cc: ideas@ietf.org; padma.ietf@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity
>>  
>> Alex,
>>  
>> I was actually thinking to use IDF for identifier, but in may of the projects I worked on, we used ID for identifier.
>>  
>> Hesham
>>  
>> From: Alexander Clemm 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:54 PM
>> To: Hesham ElBakoury; padma.ietf@gmail.com; rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com
>> Cc: ideas@ietf.org; padma.ietf@gmail.com
>> 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 [mailto:ideas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hesham ElBakoury
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:35 PM
>> To: padma.ietf@gmail.com; rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com
>> Cc: ideas@ietf.org; padma.ietf@gmail.com
>> 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
>> Cc:ideas@ietf.org,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 <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com> 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.
>>  
>> Great!
>>  
>> Thanks
>> Padma 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ideas mailing list
>> Ideas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas
>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ideas mailing list
> Ideas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas