Thanks Colin,

Have not seen 1254 just know it’s there, thanks.

So that leaves plenty of room.

About to run out of battery on plane, I will run through the draft and see if we can add clarifying language.

Regards,

Sal

From: Colin Wallis [mailto:Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:24 PM
To: 'Salvatore D'Agostino'; Joanne Knight; 'David L. Wasley'; dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: RE: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report

OK, so x.1252 (not 1254 which is entity authentication assurance) does not specifically define ‘Identity attribute’.

But I think the term can be derived from the following definitions.

Arguably, the ‘NOTE’ is not helpful given some of the AM DG discussion.

But overall, I think it is fair to say that the ITU-T definitions represent a reasonable compromise on the range of opinions expressed.

Cheers

Colin

6.30 identity: A representation of an entity in the form of one or more attributes that allow the

entity or entities to be sufficiently distinguished within context. For identity management (IdM)

purposes, the term identity is understood as contextual identity (subset of attributes), i.e., the variety

of attributes is limited by a framework with defined boundary conditions (the context) in which the

entity exists and interacts.

NOTE – Each entity is represented by one holistic identity that comprises all possible information elements

characterizing such entity (the attributes). However, this holistic identity is a theoretical issue and eludes any

description and practical usage because the number of all possible attributes is indefinite.

6.9 attribute: Information bound to an entity that specifies a characteristic of the entity.

From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Salvatore D'Agostino
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012 12:03 p.m.
To: Joanne Knight; 'David L. Wasley'; dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report

Agree that there is a distinction between “core identity” attributes and others that are acquired.

Is this in x.1254?

Let’s see if and how we can include the distinction.

From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Joanne Knight
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:47 PM
To: 'David L. Wasley'; dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report

There are two point I would pick up here.

1) If we define Identity Attribute as the values needed to establish that an individual entity in unique then adding attributes such as Student would mean an unnecessary number of attributes would need to be collected to achieive uniqueness.

2) As per previous email, we have moved further to a point where we consider Role or Context separately from unique identity. For example in an Education system one unique identity may have more than one role e.g. Student and Teacher. The identity is the same for both but the role they perform in different situations changes. We would attach rights and permissions to the combination of identity and role (personna) not to the identity on its own. Identifiers, facts and preferences may also be different depending on the role. e.g. Joe Bloggs teaches Mathematics but is learning how to paint. In his personna of Mathematics teacher his qualifications and use of the title Professor are relevant, when he is learning to paint he no longer wishes to be referred to as Professor and his mathematic and teaching qualifications are also unlikely to be relevant to his learning or ability to paint.

Don't we want to move to an environment where a person can establish their unique identity and attach it to a credential that allows them to reuse this identity when registering with any organisation. If we encumber that identity with role information that is only relevant to one organisation or system context then I would suggest we would be designing a global service centric data store rather than a person centric ecosystem.

Just my thoughts

From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of David L. Wasley
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 8:02 a.m.
To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report

Some background and a different perspective.

The original IAF was developed from the original NIST 800-63. The notion of "identity" in 800-63 was basically "a name and something added to make it unique" which is where the definition Ken found came from. The world has moved quite far from that (naive) notion.

In the identity federation with which I am most familiar (InCommon), we consider "identity attributes" to be potentially "anything that is true about a given entity." Identifiers, facts, preferences, etc. For example, "student" is an important attribute that supports access to services and resources restricted to "students." The basic set of attributes we use is defined in the eduPerson Object Class (http://middleware.internet2.edu/eduperson/).

Another set of attributes that we have discussed but not implemented would provide information that can help a RP/SP display information to a user, for example "visually impaired" -->> "increase font size," or "color blind" or "deaf", etc.

In this broader notion of "attribute" there are many different kinds:

- some things are unique to the particular entity; others are shared with other entities

- some are assigned by an SOA, e.g., passport number; others are self selected, e.g., nickname or display name.

- some are transient, e.g., "student"; others are permanent and/or never reassigned, e.g., some identifiers.

- the degree of authoritativeness of any attribute is determined by how it is acquired by the ISP and how current it is, etc.

- not all attributes will be available from any one ISP, certainly not with the same degree of assurance

- etc.

We encourage RP/SPs to request the minimum set of attributes that they need in order make an access decision.

David

On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino wrote:

Thanks Ken,

OK so if we move away from ITU f, toward "Identity Attribute is information that contributes to establishing the identity (a unique name) of a single person?"

Yes attributes can support a “higher level of authN” but also are related to authZ independent of or in combination with name or identifier. It depends on the attribute types, so might we expand this to include “.. contributes to establishing the identity (unique name) and “permissions/privileges/claims” of an individual”

Not sure what the actual word is there and put these 3 in as example/suggestion.

From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Dagg, Kenneth
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:56 PM
To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report

I checked for the term Identity Attribute in the IAF Glossary and did not find it. As such, I did not send a note to the IAWG.

However, the following terms are in the glossary:

* Attribute - a property associated with an individual

* Identity - a unique name for a single person. Because a person’s legal name is not necessarily unique, identity must include enough additional information (for example, an address or some unique identifier such as an employee or account number) to make a unique name.

* Identification - Process of using claimed or observed attributes of an individual to infer who the individual is.

* Identity Proofing - The process by which identity related information is validated so as to identify a person with a degree of uniqueness and certitude sufficient for the purposes for which that identity is to be used.

The AMDG report currently defines Identity Attribute as Information bound to a subject identity that specifies a characteristic of the subject.

I suggest that this definition is not in alignment with the definitions contained in the IAF glossary. While I have nothing against the definitions contained in ITU-T X.1252 I would suggest that we remain consistent and aligned with KI definitions. I believe the following would be more aligned, "Identity Attribute is information that contributes to establishing the identity (a unique name) of a single person?"

Comments? Or reasons not to use this definition (other than it’s not the ITU definition)?

BTW: I have updated the report. I added a glossary and some text about RP requirements. I also took the opportunity to align the recommendations at the start of the report with the recommendations at the end.

Ken

Kenneth Dagg
Senior Project Co-ordinator | Coordonnateur de projet supérieur
Security and Identity Management | Sécurité et gestion des identités
Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
Kenneth.Dagg@tbs-sct.gc.ca

Telephone | Téléphone 613-957-7041 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-954-6642 / Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-957-9090
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

_______________________________________________
DG-AM mailing list
DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am

====
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====