Re: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity

Hesham ElBakoury <> Wed, 29 March 2017 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221B7127F0E for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NYdjkncqPr3S for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5510127337 for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DJW22313; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:58:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:58:09 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:57:52 -0700
From: Hesham ElBakoury <>
To: Alexander Clemm <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Ideas] Diasambugating Identifier and Identity
Thread-Index: AQHSp916jXsqyqVhJkKB5Db3/L5LNaGrQVOA//+WETaAAL3IgP//iy7g
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:57:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <etPan.58dae51d.6489b56.379d@localhost> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C3855D43D6701846AD1151A536E7A0582405C202SJCEML701CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0202.58DB22C3.0027, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: a5271462e6ccc4de9b0f102f77736dfd
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 02:58:16 -0000


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<>