Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report
Salvatore D'Agostino
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-...@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Dagg, Kenneth
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:56 PM
To: dg...@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
Kennet...@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
Vonvictor Rosenchild
New York, NY (New York City)
Mobile: (347) 799-4749
E-mail: VonRos...@gmail.com
To: Kenneth Dagg,
Hello Kenneth,
The definition that you have provided is in alignment with the established definition.
United States Navy Veteran
New York, NY (New York City)
E-mail: vonros...@gmail.com
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.KenKenneth 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
Kennet...@tbs-sct.gc.caTelephone | 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...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am
Barbir, Abbie
Hi
Agree and as such the itu definition is better suited since identity is defined as a collection of attributes
We really need to standardize on the use of international definitions since ISO 29915 builds on x.1252
cheers
From: dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of David L. Wasley
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:02 PM
To: dg...@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
_______________________________________________
This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited.
Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Sender. Subject to applicable law, Sender may intercept, monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems and may produce any such EC to regulators, law enforcement, in litigation and as required by law.
The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.
References to "Sender" are references to any subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Securities and Insurance Products: * Are Not FDIC Insured * Are Not Bank Guaranteed * May Lose Value * Are Not a Bank Deposit * Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity * Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency. Attachments that are part of this EC may have additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should read. This message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Sender you consent to the foregoing.
Colin Wallis
+1
What Dave is implying, and Abbie is supporting (as am I on a personal basis but not necessarily the view of my employer) is that the KI definition is bound to 800-63 which is, err, outdated.
If the AM DG Report was to be bound to the IAF in some way (like for example, the Privacy Assessment Criteria from P3 WG is bound to the IAF SACs and the Kantara and Federal Privacy Profiles) then outdated or not, we would need to align.
But I’m not sure there is a strong reason why the AM DG Report should be bound to the IAF KI one, but happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
Cheers
Colin
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.
====
Keith Hazelton
> the following would be more aligned, "Identity Attribute is information that contributes to establishing the identity (a unique name) of a single person?"
I have problems with that definition because of the emphasis it puts on attributes being fundamentally about identifying someone uniquely. My attribute of "staff" at UW-Madison does very little to help pinpoint me, Keith Hazelton, but it is perfectly adequate on its own to grant me library privileges. --Keith
_________________
==== _______________________________________________
Salvatore D'Agostino
I think this points out the very tricky nature of the definition.
Our report is not really bound by anything other than best guidance. This
conversation helped us to achieve that and while a consideration of an
expansion on the 1252 definition may have some merit it is probably in the
general discussion of the "use" of attributes as opposed to the "what is".
Is consensus to stay with the existing ITU definition for the report?
Regards,
Sal
-----Original Message-----
From: dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Dagg, Kenneth
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:04 AM
To: 'David L. Wasley'; Colin Wallis
Cc: dg...@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report
The discussion has been excellent. I will make a recommendation to the IAWG
to update their glossary to reflect the discussion.
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 Kennet...@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
-----Original Message-----
From: dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of David L. Wasley
Sent: March 22, 2012 9:26 PM
To: Colin Wallis
Cc: dg...@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [DG-AM] definition of Identity Attribute for the report
No - I don't believe KI should be bound to 800-63 regarding attributes WRT
this report. 800-63 is almost entirely about credentials, not attributes.
To the extent it want's attributes embedded in credentials (e.g. PKI) or
available from CSPs in an assertion, that can be accommodated as a subset of
the more general attribute set.
In our experience with Federal apps, they do want a "name" but only to use
as a salutation, not for access control. For access, we typically provide
an opaque identifier, ideally one that is targeted specifically to the
particular app.
The hard part about attributes in general is defining the syntax and
semantics (or dictionary and grammar) and what LOA means.
David
<rtfimage://>
==== _______________________________________________
Dagg, Kenneth
Joanne Knight
Hi
Permissions and Privileges (without examples) to me are Access or Authority attributes not Identity attributes. This comes back to the definition of scope. Claims are in the realm of Trust or what I clumsily refer to as Identity Attribute Metadata Attributes or Information Attributes about Identity Attributes. ugh
Joanne Knight
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-...@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-am-...@kantarainitiative.org]
On Behalf Of David L. Wasley
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 8:02 a.m.
To: dg...@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:
_______________________________________________
DG-AM mailing list
DG...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am
Salvatore D'Agostino
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.
Colin Wallis
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.
_______________________________________________
DG-AM mailing list
DG...@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.
====
Salvatore D'Agostino
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