On 2009-03-02 10:21, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Dave, >> >> On 2009-03-02 07:17, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> ... >>> What is particularly interesting to me, about this line of comment, is >>> not whether the relevant IETF-based technologies are superior or whether >> >> Can you point me to the IETF WG(s) that are considering identity >> management as a whole? I know there was the DIX BOF at IETF 65, >> but since then?? > > Brian, > > A fair question, but Identity "management" seems to have varied > meanings, depending on who is discussing it. There is, for example, a > good argument that any authentication activity is part of, or involves, > ID mgmt. So OpenPGP, S/MIME, DKIM, TLS and the emerging OAuth > acitivities come to mind. > > So does DNS... > > >> But when it's an area that *is* relevant to the Internet, >> but that the IETF appears to have passed on, it's less clear >> what the discussion would achieve. > > passed on? huh? when did we do that? Well, what I mean is that the IETF did what it normally does (and this is not a criticism): chose to work on various bits and pieces (as you list above) but *not* to work on a general framework. Whatever people think about the Liberty Alliance, or efforts like Shibboleth, they are trying to look at the big picture. This assertion is a couple of years out of date, but people I knew who are experts in the identity management area never thought that the IETF was relevant except as a source of atomic components. Brian > > In any event, if it something ISOC considers worth making a strategic > relationship about, and it is likely to entail Internet technical > standards, then it would be strange to have the IETF skip dealing with it. > > >>> An easy example is exactly the sort of involvement being implied by the >>> current thread: When ISOC is choosing to take a strategic action, >>> should it seek public discussion within the IETF? > ... >> So I'd say it's clear what should happen: ISOC should ask the IAB, and >> the IAB, in the spirit of openness, should raise discussion within the >> IETF. > > sounds like a plan. > > > Let me stress again that I wasn't offering criticism. I think that the > IETF has historically been the source of initiatives that it > participates in, and that this appears to be something different. That > makes it worth exploring a bit. > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf