[DG-IDoT] Common identity standard

Simon Moffatt simon.moffatt at forgerock.com
Tue Jul 28 03:06:40 CDT 2015


Hi Ingo

I think you make some subtly very powerful points here.  Uniqueness by 
static identifiers is difficult to uphold as you mention. However, the 
powerful aspect is the relative context being applied, which results in 
local uniqueness.

That context information, such as where you work and your city, not only 
helps reduce the noise and pollution of unrelated identities, but it 
also reduces the scope of knowledge to those who know what living in 
that city or working at that company actually means.

The interesting paradox here - which is often overlooked - is that the 
more that the contextual information is made public, the less likely it 
is to be faked.

For example, I "know" everything there is to know about Justin Bieber - 
simply by Googling - which ironically makes it incredibly difficult for 
me to "fake" his identity, as there are several avenues to prove me wrong.

The relationship aspect here is what helps not only identifier the 
person/thing/object but also verify it's existence and thus possible 
integrity.

Simon



On 27/07/15 19:54, Ingo.Friese at telekom.de wrote:
>
> As we have already many IDs outside I doubt that we can propose a 
> certain GUID. But of course you can use GUID if you need some kind of 
> ID for your system.
>
> Jeff, uniqueness is most likely not realistic. We don’t have no 
> governance over all possible IDs. But the nice thing about identifying 
> things with relationships is that identifier don’t have to be unique.
>
> There are several “Ingo Friese” outside, but since you know “works 
> with T-Labs” and “Lives in Berlin” you can find me regardless of my 
> identifier.
>
> The identifier than is usually mapped to a address (e.g. IP address). 
> And addresses are unique in their domain.
>
> *From:*j stollman [mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Montag, 27. Juli 2015 20:45
> *To:* Ranjan Jain (ranjain)
> *Cc:* Friese, Ingo; afesta at alfweb.com; dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DG-IDoT] Common identity standard
>
> Ranjan,
>
> What would the GUID be based on?  How would you ensure its 
> _U_niqueness across industry sectors, across the globe, and over time?
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>
> 1 202.683.8699
>
> Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
>
> Science advances one funeral at a time.
>
>                                   Max Planck
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Ranjan Jain (ranjain) 
> <ranjain at cisco.com <mailto:ranjain at cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> All great ideas so far.
>
> How about using GUID as the identifier which can be tied to a “thing” 
> and this GUID can have multiple personas based on the relationship? 
> Ofcourse we’ll need some kind of discovery service and the things need 
> to publish their meta data for usage but just wanted to get initial 
> assessment.
>
> *From: *"Ingo.Friese at telekom.de <mailto:Ingo.Friese at telekom.de>" 
> <Ingo.Friese at telekom.de <mailto:Ingo.Friese at telekom.de>>
> *Date: *Monday, July 27, 2015 at 7:50 AM
> *To: *"stollman.j at gmail.com <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>" 
> <stollman.j at gmail.com <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>>, 
> "afesta at alfweb.com <mailto:afesta at alfweb.com>" <afesta at alfweb.com 
> <mailto:afesta at alfweb.com>>
> *Cc: *"dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org 
> <mailto:dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org>" <dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org 
> <mailto:dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [DG-IDoT] Common identity standard
>
>     Hi Jeff,
>
>     Regarding point 3. following thoughts:
>
>     -The owner, admin, or user of a thing has to trigger an
>     update…their might be services that do the update on behalf
>
>     -In general we need an update mechanism, if e.g. an owner changes,
>     it should be changed in discovery/search...not a big deal. Isn’ it?
>
>     *From:*dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
>     <mailto:dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org>
>     [mailto:dg-idot-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *j
>     stollman
>
>
>     *Sent:* Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 19:21
>     *To:* Alessandro Festa
>     *Cc:* dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org
>     <mailto:dg-idot at kantarainitiative.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [DG-IDoT] Common identity standard
>
>     I am with Alessandro in the complexity of this solution in the
>     real world.
>
>      1. An iPhone is a collection of IoT devices (camera, audio
>         recorder, touch screen, telephone, computer, etc.).  Should
>         each of these have its own "good key pair"?  If not how do we
>         handle the sale of just the camera by the same OEM who sells
>         the camera to Apple?  Do we need a way to aggregate devices?
>      2. Separately, what constitutes a "good key pair"? Will all of
>         the many unenlightened, non-high-tech manufacturers in the
>         world participate?  What is the likelihood that they will
>         create duplicate key pairs when there are billions of
>         devices?  We tend to consider that we are servicing an
>         environment where everyone is paying attention to
>         international standards.  Standards in markets as broad as we
>         are discussion take decades to become pervasive.  How many
>         types of screws do we have?  It isn't just metric versus
>         "standard."  Screws differ in diameter, pitch, head shape
>         (flat, pan, etc.), and driver type (straight blade, phillips,
>         head, star, etc.).  And then there are custom screws.  In IoT
>         we will have hobbyist-types creating devices, along with
>         old-line manufacturers.  It isn't just an Apply and Samsung world.
>      3. To Ingo's comment about relationships, how do we track changes
>         in those relationships without creating a massive
>         infrastructure?  What happens when company A has a device that
>         is used by employees A1, A2, and A3, sells the device to
>         company B for use by B7, B8, and B9?
>
>     Jeff
>
>
>     ---------------------------------
>
>     Jeff Stollman
>     stollman.j at gmail.com <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>
>     1 202.683.8699 <tel:1%20202.683.8699>
>
>     Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
>
>     Science advances one funeral at a time.
>
>         Max Planck
>
>     On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Alessandro Festa
>     <afesta at alfweb.com <mailto:afesta at alfweb.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Nat,
>
>     related to the private key embeded by manufacturer I am wondering
>     who would embed what in the case of a multi-manufacturer.
>
>     use case:
>
>     1) thing created by original manufacturer : embed a priv key
>
>     2) thing crafted/customized (oem) by second manufacturer : embed a
>     priv key
>
>     when thing will need to act on behalf I expect to reflect a 1 to
>     many relationship at this point and so I'll need as user to decide
>     the degree of relationship between the various keys or only one
>     single key pair will be allowed and this means we need to define a
>     hierarchical policy to decide who will embed what.
>
>     I immagine an onion ring model based on user consent and
>     relationship constrain: user to seller, seller to manufacturer
>     (original or oem), manufacturer (oem) to manufacturer
>
>     Alex
>
>     -
>
>     Alessandro Festa
>
>     website:http://alfweb.com
>
>     twitter:@festaatdell
>
>     email:afesta at alfweb.com <mailto:email%3Aafesta at alfweb.com>
>
>     Il Venerdì 24 Luglio 2015 13:10, Paul Madsen
>     <pmadsen at pingidentity.com <mailto:pmadsen at pingidentity.com>> ha
>     scritto:
>
>         Hi nat, I would follow on to your steps below
>
>         On 7/24/15 4:56 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
>             Yeah, it is nice, but WSDL would be too big.
>
>             Remember that sending 1 byte over the radio takes as much
>             power as encrypting 1000 bytes. Also, memory and
>             processing power is becoming cheap, so in IoT context, we
>             should probably treat "minimizing the radio packet" as the
>             priority.
>
>             As to the identification of the things are cocerned, the
>             viable model that I imagine is as follows:
>
>              1. The device manufacutrer creates a good keypair and
>                 embeds the private key (and its key thumbprint) in the
>                 device.
>              2. For device authentication, use the key to sign the
>                 message.
>
>         When acting on behalf of a user
>
>         3. Authenticated user facilitates delivery of tokens to device
>         4. Device authenticates to AS using embedded keys in order to
>         obtain tokens
>         5. Device uses tokens to authenticate to cloud endpoints,
>         other device etc
>
>         Tokens thereby reflect 'relationship' of user & device
>
>         Nat
>
>         2015-07-22 1:33 GMT+09:00 Aninda Bhunia <abhunia at inc38.com
>         <mailto:abhunia at inc38.com>>:
>
>         It would be interesting if we could create a standard that
>         would allow even non IP devices to publish their identity
>         through a wsdl type structure. Even if they are non IP at some
>         point in their upwards relationship hierarchy their master
>         gateway would be IP based and could be responsible for
>         publishing the identity wsdls for the entities it brokers.
>         Thoughts ?
>
>         On Jul 21, 2015 11:52 AM, "Joni Brennan"
>         <joni at kantarainitiative.org
>         <mailto:joni at kantarainitiative.org>> wrote:
>
>         Noting I have no vote =)
>
>         I agree with Paul and others regarding discovery as the key
>         initial mechanism.  I believe Ingo has also noted this in the
>         summaries from IDoT.  Sal mentions NMAP / SNMP are there other
>         exiting approaches?  (apologies if this has been discussed in
>         detail already)
>
>         - Joni
>
>
>         Best Regards,
>
>
>         Joni Brennan
>         Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
>         email: joni @ kantarainitiative.org
>         <http://kantarainitiative.org/>
>
>         Connecting Identity for a more trustworthy Internet - Overview
>         <http://www.slideshare.net/kantarainitiative/kantara-overview2014-37969351>
>
>         On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino
>         <sal at idmachines.com <mailto:sal at idmachines.com>> wrote:
>
>         Other than ip devices?  In that case there are mechanisms
>         support scanning ( eg NMAP) or SNMP that have been around for
>         a while these are typically not exactly API friendly but do
>         provide a starting point and we make good use in our offerings.
>
>         Salvatore D'Agostino
>
>         IDmachines LLC |1264 Beacon Street, #5
>
>         Brookline, MA. 02446 | USA
>
>         http://www.idmachines.com <http://www.idmachines.com/>
>
>
>         On Jul 21, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Paul Madsen
>         <pmadsen at pingidentity.com <mailto:pmadsen at pingidentity.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>             (one of) what is needed is a standardized mechanism for
>             devices to present their identity (and those humans for
>             which they are acting) to other things, cloud endpoints &
>             applications
>
>             On 7/16/15 2:38 PM, Ranjan Jain (ranjain) wrote:
>
>                 Hey y’all,
>
>                 Hope everyone is doing well. Just wanted to bounce a
>                 question which I’m consistently getting asked around
>                 Identity, IoT perspective. Is there any industry
>                 standard in place or in works which can be used as a
>                 common standard across multiple identities. What I
>                 mean by this is that humans have SSN as an identity
>                 while a thermostat may have serial number while a
>                 network device may have a Mac ID as their identity.
>                 So, while individually they all have their own
>                 identity standard, when in the IoT world, all these
>                 entities start interacting with each other, how do we
>                 translate one identity into another or how will one
>                 identity interact with another identity in a standards
>                 way?
>
>                 Thanks
>
>                 Ranjan
>
>
>                 *Ranjan Jain*
>                 ARCHITECT.IT <http://architect.it/>
>                 Information Technology
>                 ranjain at cisco.com <mailto:ranjain at cisco.com>
>                 Phone: *+1 408 853 4396 <tel:%2B1%20408%20853%204396>*
>                 Mobile: *+1 408 627 9538 <tel:%2B1%20408%20627%209538>*
>
>                 	
>
>                 *Cisco Systems, Inc.*
>                 400 East Tasman Drive
>                 San Jose
>                 California
>                 95134
>                 United States
>                 Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/>
>
>                 	
>
>                  Think before you print.
>
>                 This email may contain confidential and privileged
>                 material for the sole use of the intended recipient.
>                 Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others
>                 is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>                 recipient (or authorized to receive for the
>                 recipient), please contact the sender by reply email
>                 and delete all copies of this message.
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 DG-IDoT mailing list
>
>                 DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org  <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>
>                 http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             DG-IDoT mailing list
>             DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
>             <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>             http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         DG-IDoT mailing list
>         DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
>         <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>         http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         DG-IDoT mailing list
>         DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
>         <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>         http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         DG-IDoT mailing list
>         DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
>         <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>         http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>
>         Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>         http://nat.sakimura.org/
>         @_nat_en
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         DG-IDoT mailing list
>
>         DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org  <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>
>         http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         DG-IDoT mailing list
>         DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
>         <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>         http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     DG-IDoT mailing list
>     DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org>
>     http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DG-IDoT mailing list
> DG-IDoT at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot

-- 
ForgeRock <http://www.forgerock.com/> 	*Simon Moffatt*
Solutions Director  |  Sales Engineering  |  ForgeRock
*tel* +44 (0) 7903 347 240  | *e* Simon.Moffatt at Forgerock.com 
<mailto:simon.moffatt at forgerock.com>
*skype* simon.moffatt  | *web* www.forgerock.com 
<http://www.forgerock.com/>  | *twitter* @simonmoffatt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-idot/attachments/20150728/8922658d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FR_Sig_Logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11225 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-idot/attachments/20150728/8922658d/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the DG-IDoT mailing list