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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: 01 March, 2009 19:30 >>> To: Hannes Tschofenig >>> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> 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@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf