IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model] remove the terms identification, identity, identifying (#21)

Danny Haynes <notifications@github.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9D51294F3 for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.295 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OdLwmweZVXZQ for <sacm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext6.iad.github.net [192.30.252.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FDBF1294DF for <sacm@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:40:59 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1491486059; bh=gwfDnrwDZGjFBxWnWVx1weX3j1g7WQH9OsqT7pTsc+w=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SO0pnqC8sPXUnHuZ9nVnxrwngjb+oAu7s6ejFlIAxLTa+wn8dnDwREeO7T8E9yMQx le8UL7wxa/HZ69QTIIHGOwta86lp/dUOrh3n0OfjoKC3CDV/9p5GarLzD42QT5bz0x WjzbZBuWa8BTC2y/rqjeoCoO4DbEFUau06YXc6Ig=
From: Danny Haynes <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model <reply+00a6c4d1ddbc62d2baff2d838dd2aef5c16d7821adff811492cf0000000114fe076b92a169ce05dd98e9@reply.github.com>
To: sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model <draft-ietf-sacm-information-model@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model/issues/21/292177837@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model/issues/21@github.com>
References: <sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model/issues/21@github.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58e6456b50e12_2abe3fd818f83c2c9566e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: djhaynes
X-GitHub-Recipient: sacm
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: sacm@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/rBqkVxhIqYZs5mwG3Q2kMzwpotQ>
Subject: Re: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model] remove the terms identification, identity, identifying (#21)
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:41:09 -0000

The majority of the uses of "identification", "identity", and "identifying" are with respect to endpoint identifiers, component identifiers, labels unique to a SACM domain, a set of attributes used to identify endpoints, and identifiers for actual endpoint attributes all of which are expected to be defined by, or under the control of the organization that owns the network. Given that, I think I agree with others that have posted thoughts on this issue and that it is acceptable to use these terms since they best describe what we are talking about and because we cover the privacy concerns in the Privacy Considerations section.

As a result, I would like to propose that we close this issue. What do others think?


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-information-model/issues/21#issuecomment-292177837

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email