RE: QC comparisons are DEADLY serious!

["Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

<snip>

>In version 2 X.509 certs there was a field added for unique subject and
>issuer IDs.  It was a bad idea, designed to address what appear to be some
>of the issues you alluded to above; nobody uses it.

Except for the Swedish and Finnish ID-card programs.  Well, to be honest they have
defined some subject extensions "on their own" to achive this functionality and I suggest
that this gets standardized.  And INTEROPERABILITY is a goal of QC isn't it?

BTW, I think that most employee systems use "emplyee numbers" internally to keep track
of employees.  To become a "new" employeee just because you have been promoted
is IMO an awkward solution.

Actually, I wonder how wide-spread the initial QC attribute-based identity scheme will be.

But Steve, let the MARKET and LEGISLATORS decide.  We provide the options.

<snip>

Anders