Re: dnQualifier topic - not solved yet.

[Stefan Santesson <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles,

You wanted me to address your issues. Well I regard David's reply here as a
good expression of my view as well.

/Stefan

At 06:46 PM 11/30/99 -0500, David P. Kemp wrote:
>
>> From: "Charles Moore" <cmoore@spyrus.com.au>
>> 
>> So if nobody strongly object to this I will go ahead and include this in
>> the QC profile and I assume that rfc 2459 will be updated accordingly
>> 
>> cm> I object for the reasons previously outlined.. You are using it with the
>> wrong sematics and it will be impossible to distinguish from previous usage
>> that has the correct semantics...
>> Please address these issues...
>
>Charles,
>
>I don't understand this objection.  If X.520 is modified as suggested
>(so that serialNumber applies to person objects as well as device objects),
>what is "incorrect" about the semantics?   To my American English ear :-),
>the word "serialNumber" when applied to a person means the same thing
>as "employee number" or "customer number" when applied to a person, or
>"VIN" when applied to an automobile.  The word "number" shouldn't be
>the problem - even when applied to devices such as modems and
>lawnmowers, serial numbers are generally alphanumeric, not purely
>numeric.
>
>What incompatibility or problem with existing usage would be caused by
>adding "person" to the class of objects to which serialNumber applies?
>
>
>
>> The proposal was previously presented as:
>> > I suggest that we:
>> >
>> > - Add serialNumber to son of rfc2459 supportedAttributes as a MUST
>> > implement attribute (i.e. compliant applications MUST be able to
>> understand
>> > it).
>> cm> See above this is not possible given existing usage...
>> Also please address the usage and privacy issue....
>
>What privacy issue?  There is nothing that implies a serialNumber attribute
>must be a National ID (or a Global ID); more likely it will be unique
>per issuer.  Your customer number from Land's End Direct Merchants is
>different from your driver's license number, your bank account
>number(s), and your brokerage account number(s), and your employer's
>retirement account number.
>
>Your proposed new attribute would be no different from serialNumber from
>a privacy perspective - privacy is affected by the scope of uniqueness
>(the number of databases which know you by a particular identifier),
>not by the choice of attribute OID.
>
>
>> > It would help to get your immediate support for this. Can you live with
>> it??
>> 
>> cm> No...
>
>So far the consensus for serialNumber seems smooth, with only one nay.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Santesson                <stefan@accurata.se>
Accurata AB                     http://www.accurata.se
Slagthuset                      Tel. +46-40 108588              
211 20  Malmö                   Fax. +46-40 150790              
Sweden                        Mobile +46-70 5247799

PGP fingerprint: 89BC 6C79 5B3D 591B 8547  1512 7D11 DBF4 528F 29A0
-------------------------------------------------------------------