RE: [security-services] Final text for NameIndentifier (includes fixesfrom March 5 Con-C all)

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> > The interpretation of the name qualifier and the name are left to 
> > individual implementations,
> > including issues of anonymity, pseudonymity, and the persistence
> > of the identifier with respect to the asserting and relying parties.
> 
> 
> This seems odd to say now, since we're specifying particular formats. 
> Perhaps we should remove this disclaimer in the case of the three 
> standardized ones?

How about this:

"The interpretation of NameQualifier, and the NameIdentifier's content
in the case of a Format not specified in this document, are left to
individual implementations, including issues of anonymity, pseudonymity,
and the persistence of the identifier with respect to the asserting and
relying parties."

NameQualifier is not really specified in any precise way, so the only
standardization involved is on the name itself. One could go farther and
say something about how the standard formats should be used with respect
to some of those issues (eg. email addresses should be "real"?) but that
seems like a needless complication.

-- Scott