Hi Joel,
Hannes,
Two mostly rhetorical questions...
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
As you might have noticed, the WebSSO Identity Management
space is not
running out of organizations and groups. Someone could, for example,
come up with the question why ISOC did not join the MIT Kerberos
Consortium (see http://www.kerberos.org/), as Kerberos is a
technology
developed within the IETF, or to support technologies like OpenID,
OAuth, etc. that are closer to the Internet deployment.
I am sure your team had a lot of conversations with the IAB on what
direction would be better for the Internet (with respect to the
creation of an identity layer) but I fear that many in the IETF
community are at best not informed about what you are doing and why
you believe that this is heading into the right direction.
I find it somewhat interesting that we would perceive the ISOC
as being responsible to the IETF in this regard.
Responsible is not the right term. A bit better synchronized would be nice.
The IETF is
not the only place to do standards.
Everyone knows that. Even the ITU-T is working on identity management ...
Is the IETF the right
place to do this work?
[By 'this' I assume you mean 'work on IdM']
I wonder why you think that the work on identity management could not
something the IETF should we focusing on?
Folks who participate in the IETF do their work on identity management in
other organizations.
It would be useful todo an analysis on why the IETF isn't suitable for
dealing with some of the application layer / security work that happen
currently outside the IETF:
* Is it a problem with the persons (lack of knowledge, for example)?
* Is it possible that some folks don't want to wait 5 years till a
specification gets finished?
* Maybe they have problems with our IPR policy?
Would be really interesting to understand these types of things a bit
better. Don't you think so?
How go are we historically at public policy?
If ISOC wants to understand what "managed identity" will
mean for end
users then maybe a discussion within the IETF would help to get a
better understanding as some of us have been working on this
subject for a while.
One could even claim that the IETF is also a pretty open forum to
discuss these types of things, particularly when they have a high
relevance for the Internet. Did nobody come up with the idea
about how
the IETF could be more actively involved in this space?
I give you the IETF 65 and 66 dix/wae bof/dicusssions... What
were the outcomes? Do the right people even come to the IETF?
Don't ask me. I am still puzzled about the lack of actions.
After the 2nd BOF I had the impression that everything was going fine.
Obviously not quite ...
Ciao
Hannes
Ciao
Hannes
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Lynch [mailto:llynch(_at_)civil-tongue(_dot_)net]
Sent: 01 March, 2009 19:30
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Internet Society joins Liberty Alliance Management
Board: Why?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I would like to hear a bit more background about these
activities, see
https://www.projectliberty.org/news_events/press_releases/internet_so
c
iety_j oins_liberty_alliance_management_board
Hannes -
<ISOC hat on>
As stated in the press release, ISOC has joined the the Liberty
Alliance Board. Our participation here is directly related to the
ISOC initiative on Trust and Identity (T/Id).
Our primary interest is not just the Liberty Alliance itself but a
proposed transition to a broader organization. This effort is
currently called either IDTBD or NewOrg in the community
discussions.
The intent is to open participation to new entrants and
technologies
and NewOrg will also help represent emerging identity
management work
to end-users, policymakers, enterprise adopters, and others.
ISOC has been actively reaching out to many of the current identity
technology communities as part of our effort to understand what
"managed identity" will mean for end users. We also have some
interest in how the frameworks and use cases developing in user
managed identity communities may overlap and inform more
traditional
networked identity/identifier problems. I believe that ISOC support
for this move to an open community lead forum will help bring this
important work to a broader audience and will encourage greater
participation and interoperability (high priorities for T/Id work:
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/initiative/trust.shtml).
The transition to a "NewOrg" is still in process, and the founding
documents: by-laws, operating procedures, IPR considerations, etc.,
were reviewed at the recent Liberty Alliance Plenary and
continue to
progress.
(see: http://groups.google.com/group/idtbd)
- Lucy
Thanks!
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf