Subject: [drinks] FW: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF DRINKS Group on a unique international resource for global Service Provider Identification (SPID)"

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:49:49 -0400

Hi Richard,

Over the past 18 months, there have been multiple efforts in different
forums (including ITU-T forums) addressing the subject of a unique
global service provider identity (a/k/a SPID).  ITU-T Study Group 17
(security) abandoned the effort and focussed instead on service
provider identity *trust* using EVcerts combined with Enterprise OIDs. 

This action was a recognition that multiple standards bodies and the
industry
have chosen IANA Enterprise OIDs as the means of choice of implementing
a unique global service provider *identifier.*  There are now something
approaching
40,000 of them registered.  It also recognizes that the reality that the
EVcert
has been recognized by multiple standards bodies, including the IETF, ITU-T,
ETSI, Liberty Alliance, etc, as the basis for high-trust, open,
*identity* among
service providers and users.

Reading through the DRINKS material, it's not apparent that you are doing
anything that deviates from the Enterprise OID/EVcert consensus.  Is that
accurate?  What at most may be needed might be a means for pointing or
binding
Enterprise OIDs to the plethora of provider identifiers that exist,
including those
associated with the DRINKS work.

best,
tony

-- 
Tony Rutkowski | Netmagic Associates LLC | Ashburn VA | mob: +1 703.999.8270

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:56:27 -0400

Hi Tony .. nice to see you active :-)  In line.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
>  Behalf Of Tony Rutkowski
>  Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:50 AM
>  To: [email-masked]
>  Subject: [drinks] FW: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF DRINKS
>  Group on a unique international resource for global Service Provider
>  Identification (SPID)"
>  
>  Hi Richard,
>  
>  industry  have chosen IANA Enterprise OIDs as the means of choice of
>  implementing
>  a unique global service provider *identifier.*  There are now
>  something>  approaching
>  40,000 of them registered.  It also recognizes that the reality that
>  the  EVcert  has been recognized by multiple standards bodies, including
the IETF,
>  ITU-T,  ETSI, Liberty Alliance, etc, as the basis for high-trust, open,
>  *identity* among  service providers and users.
>  
>  Reading through the DRINKS material, it's not apparent that you are
>  doing anything that deviates from the Enterprise OID/EVcert consensus. 

That is correct the way I read the liaison statement was that the DRINKS
Protocol ( what ever that is) should accommodate the GSPID concept in its
data model the way it would any normal national SPID or ALT-SPID etc

 Is
>  that
>  binding Enterprise OIDs to the plethora of provider identifiers that
exist,
>  including those associated with the DRINKS work.

We have not seen a use case for the Enterprise OID's and if you would like
to provide one that would be appreciated, in any event the goal of the
DRINKS WG is to be extensible for all forms of existing and future data
requirements.

>  _______________________________________________
>  drinks mailing list
>  [email-masked]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks

---

From: Tony Rutkowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:12:23 -0400

Hi Rich,

> data model the way it would any normal national SPID or ALT-SPID etc
Helpful.   It appeared from the SG2 material that DRINKS was
spinning up some kind of new SPID. 

There is today no such thing as a singularity denominated as
a SPID.   To there extent that a prevailing global service provider
identifier has emerged, it appears to be the Enterprise OIDs.  So,
harmony exists in the world, and there is no need to invent another
identifier.

best,
tony

---

From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:26:21 -0400

Just want to be sure we're all on the same page - It seems to me that
drinks uses a service provider identifier only internally for keeping
track of which entities own which data objects or may access them. I
would guess that using some previously defined set of IDs (maybe OIDs
for instance) would be advantageous but I don't see drinks doing
anything with SPID externally.
Am I missing something? 

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Tony Rutkowski
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [drinks] FW: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF DRINKS
Group on a unique international resource for global Service Provider
Identification (SPID)"

Hi Rich,

best,
tony

-- 
Tony Rutkowski | Netmagic Associates LLC | Ashburn VA | mob: +1
703.999.8270

---

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:45:06 -0700

I'd tend to agree with that.  The drinks work is ongoing, so nothing has
been fully fleshed out, but maybe the following is helpful...

1) The implementations of a provisioning protocol need to track the
business entity that is responsible for a given object that has been or
is being provisioned.  A business entity identifier is necessary to
accomplish this.  
2) The provisioning protocol also needs to expose the ability to
establish "peering relationships" between business entities.  A business
entity ID is also necessary to accomplish this.
3) Given that this ID needs to be unique to the widest extent practical,
using the IDs from the IANA "Private Enterprise Number (PEN)" as a basis
for the ID is definitely a viable (and maybe the best) optional.  And if
it turns out that this value also morphs into a the "global SPID", then
all the better.
4) This identifier could be called an "Enterprise ID", or an
"Organization ID", or a GSPID (if we get so bold), or a "Data Recipient
ID".  Although I think this latter term is too limiting because it ties
*one specific* role (Data Recipient) a business entity can fulfill into
the name of the data element.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:26 PM
To: [email-masked]; Richard Shockey
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [drinks] FW: New Liaison Statement,"Liaison to IETF DRINKS
Group on a unique international resourcefor global Service Provider
Identification (SPID)"

Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962

-----Original Message-----

Hi Rich,

best,
tony