[ietf-enroll] Charter

[Paul Hoffman / VPNC]

At 1:30 PM -0700 5/1/03, Jim Schaad wrote:
>I am agnositic on this term.  My main problem with identity is that, for
>me, it implies actual knowledge of who is on the other side.  But I can
>see people making the same argument on name.  One term that I consdered
>using here, and I see is in my vocabulary list is "Entity Label".  Would
>you consider this as a better term?

It is better than "name". Also, "identity" can sound like something 
that there is just one of. I'm fine with "entity label".

>  > I'm not sure why this is here. If I understand the list above, the
>>  protocol looks a bit like:
>>
>>  Alice: "I'm Alice, here is my keying material, and I want the set of
>>  permissions called A."
>>  Bob: "I agree with your keying material, therefore I agree you are
>>  Alice and you get permissions A."
>>
>>  A different model that I think is even more common and
>>  expected would be:
>>
>>  Alice: "I'm Alice, here is my keying material; what
>>  permissions do I get?"
>>  Bob: "I agree with your keying material, therefore I agree you are
>>  Alice, and I give you permissions A."
>>
>>  If people agree with that description, then #3 above is not needed.
>
>I consider both models to be acceptable within the framework.  Sometimes
>there is only one thing that can be asked for, some times the enrollee
>wants to ask for certain privelges and some times the enroller wants to
>say that only some things (which can change over time) can change.

In that case, you need to make #3 optional.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium