On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/10/17 04:38, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
> To address your concerns: no all encompassing system, or humans involved
> here.
I'm sorry but my concerns are just not addressed.
There are humans involved here - they're the ones carrying
the phones and whose presence triggers traffic from other
devices.And while "all encompassing" is maybe a little bit
overstated, anything considering that there's a widespread
need for permanent identifiers (your IDy's) does seem to be
aiming in that direction.
<Padma>
The charter does not mention permanent IDy. However, it is in one of the drafts which AFAIK the authors intend to refresh in a few days to clear up this specific point.
I responded earlier to Jari on this specific topic wrt his feedback at the bof. It was discussed on the alias whether IDy are permanent or have a lifecycle. The consensus was that IDys are mutable and have a lifecycle.
The charter specifically has this text to reflect this:
- Registration and lifecycle management of identities and their associated identifiers.
If this effort is only aiming at
some niche within the universe of devices that could have
(but hopefully won't have) permanent identifiers known to
networking kit, then you've not identified the niche, and
so do sorta seem to be aiming for an all-encompasing IdP.
Noted that the scope should be clarified in the charter.
To address your concerns:
The IDy is not permanent and the scope of the work is not aiming to be all encompassing.
The consensus position should be reflected in the next revision to avoid any discrepancies.
Propose that we add some text in the charter to reflect the niche/scope of the work.
Padma
S.