RE: [xdi] Prototypical use case attempt: Registration

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

RE the generation of e-numbers for e-names, I believe BOTH the Registry and
the Registrar/Broker should assign an e-number corresponding to the e-name,
though the latter should probably be a cross-reference to the former. Here's
why:

* The global e-number produced by the Registry is what enables the
registrant's account to be portable among Registrars/Brokers.

* The local e-number produced by the Registrar/Broker is what enables
identification of the registrant's account in a local context, i.e., at that
particular Registrar/Broker.

Example (using my own global personal e-name)

Global e-name: =Drummond
Global e-number: =:1000/:1234
Local e-number: @:1001/(=:1000/:1234)

Now, the challenge I see in doing all this for Identity Commons E-name Early
Registration Program is that the policies for the structure and assignment
of global e-numbers need to be set by XDI.ORG in the global services
specifications that won't be published until this summer and approved until
September.

So for the E-name Early Registration Program, it may make sense for Identity
Commons to assign its own local e-numbers, then retrofit global e-numbers as
synonyms during the transition period between the E-name Early Registration
Program and the start of general e-name registration.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:32 AM
To: Peter C Davis
Cc: XDI TC
Subject: Re: [xdi] Prototypical use case attempt: Registration

Thanks Peter.  SourceID and OpenSAML/Shibboleth are definitely on our 
radar screen for our reference implementation, though we are not yet 
integrating them into our current (alpha) code base.  FYI, we (Identity 
Commons) have collected a set of links and resources we find useful 
here:  http://wiki.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/SSXDI_2fLinks

Did you get a chance to look at the EnameRegistration page?
http://xrixdi.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/XdiUseCases/EnameRegistration

There's an issue regarding the fact that we are expecting the Registry 
to generate and return an e-number associated with an e-name that is 
being registered.  We considered having the Registrar generate the 
e-number, but as it is the Registry that "defines" a community (and 
ensures uniqueness of e-names within that community) it seems that the 
Registry ought also to generate the unique e-number.

Best,
Fen


Peter C Davis wrote:
>>Next question: is anyone working on #2, Generic Data Sharing, 
>>particularly WRT Create and Query, as that is our next hurdle.
> 
> 
> _IF_ the TC moves towards buidling on other composable architectures,
> such as Liberty and WS-*, then you may take a look at sourceID, which
> has impimented the Attribute protocols within Liberty (aka DST
> Framework).  This is a specific profile of DST (PIP), but it may give
> you a good baseline reference.
> 
> --- peterd
>