Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Even more of the Most Interesting Man in Identity
- An email away message of his sold for more than 30k at auction
- For spammers, merely to be filtered by his email client is considered a coup
- Mathematicans calculate that, should he die, 37% of the world's population would be left socially isolated
- He regularly donates his extra Twitter followers to street people
- Graduate literature courses are dedicated to analyzing the subtleties of his email signature
- With him, 3 degrees of separation is sufficient
- A new IM status, halfway between 'away' and 'offline', was invented for him.
- He tweets twice a year, at which times the TV networks interupt their normal programming for commentary.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Friday, June 04, 2010
The calculus
Generally, the more valuable a resource is, the more discerning (or less promiscuous) will an SP/RP be in choosing IdPs/OPs to accept assertions from in order to grant access to that resource.
For a resource with zero value, nothing discourages the RP from accepting identity assertions from any IdP. For a resource with infinite value, nothing encourages the RP to accept assertions from any Idp. For resources with value in between these extremes, increased value pushes the RP to pick partner IdPs from a smaller pool of candidates.
Trust frameworks like OIX, InCommon, and Kantara's IAF, in which the determination of what IdPs are suitable for a given value of resource is removed from the shoulders of the RP, change the equation by making choosing IdPs more scaleable.
For a given resource value, the RP has a larger pool of candidate IdPs to choose from. (except for resources with zero or infinite value).
From the PoV of a given RP, the 'value' of the trust framework is the difference in area under the two curves for the range of values of particular interest to that RP
I think there is enough here to get some Masters student started on a monetization thesis no?
For a resource with zero value, nothing discourages the RP from accepting identity assertions from any IdP. For a resource with infinite value, nothing encourages the RP to accept assertions from any Idp. For resources with value in between these extremes, increased value pushes the RP to pick partner IdPs from a smaller pool of candidates.
Trust frameworks like OIX, InCommon, and Kantara's IAF, in which the determination of what IdPs are suitable for a given value of resource is removed from the shoulders of the RP, change the equation by making choosing IdPs more scaleable.
For a given resource value, the RP has a larger pool of candidate IdPs to choose from. (except for resources with zero or infinite value).
From the PoV of a given RP, the 'value' of the trust framework is the difference in area under the two curves for the range of values of particular interest to that RP
I think there is enough here to get some Masters student started on a monetization thesis no?
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)