[WG-P3] [WG-IDAssurance] What to call a Relying Party in terms of aTrust Framework
Richard G. WILSHER (Zygma)
RGW at Zygma.biz
Thu Mar 10 19:42:04 EST 2011
That's not a bad take, except that some of the 'lower-level' glossaries are
at least well-established, and at worst set in stone (e.g. terms embedded
within legislation ands published standards). I also notice that the terms
'subject' and 'subscriber' have yet to rear their heads, but these have very
specific meanings in the context of certain ETSI TS created to underpin the
European e-sigs Directive, and similar terminology is employed in the IAF
SAC. I suspect there is a high degree of common intent cf. 'Principle', but
I don't get the feeling that full congruence is going to be there, not least
because 'subject' and 'subscriber' have a deliberate distinction. Agreed
though, something needs to be done to assist with understanding, even if
full alignment cannot be attained.
If anyone is unable to resist the urge to reply, feel free to remove me
explicitly from the list - I'll get it once via the IAWG list, thanks (but I
lacked the courage to limit this response to only the lists ;-).
From: Ben Wilson [mailto:ben at digicert.com]
Sent: 11 March 2011 00:31
To: 'John Bradley'; 'Patrick Curry'
Cc: 'Richard G. WILSHER (Zygma)'; 'IA WG'; 'Tom Smedinghoff'; 'Kantara P3WG'
Subject: RE: [WG-IDAssurance] [WG-P3] What to call a Relying Party in terms
of aTrust Framework
Is this discussion part of the effort to develop a Trust Framework Meta
Model? If so, I understand the problem better now-it seems that the
challenge is related to what Rainer mentioned earlier - that it is difficult
to map / cross-walk identity-related roles and terminologies in various
systems (PKI, SAML, Privacy) into a single concept domain-like the
difficulty Einstein had developing his unified field theory. But I suppose
we need write something that will make the whole picture a little more
clear. I like the use of meta-tags (e.g. <saml:Issuer>). Maybe we ought to
create a new set of cross-federation metatags as part of the Trust Framework
Meta Model? If I'm off base on my understanding of where we're going, let
me know, but maybe we throw out the lower level glossaries and start fresh
with words that are tailored to the issues we're trying to address (unless
an underlying term is congruent with 90% or more of what we're trying to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WG-P3