[cap-talk] "Who" seen as thorny (was: Defense of Identities, etc.)

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

On 10/12/2006, at 0.41, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:

>On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 02:57 +0100, Valerio Bellizzomi wrote:
>> On 08/12/2006, at 19.11, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>> 
>> >On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 14:33 -0800, Jed at Webstart wrote:
>> >> At 10:01 AM 12/7/2006, Karp, Alan H wrote:
>> >> >Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>> >> >
>> (snip)
>> 
>> >Part of what I'm saying is that the term "subject" is different from
the
>> >term "user" for a reason, and it often proves that when we are
speaking
>> >of "who" what we really need is subject ids rather than user ids.
>> 
>> Could it be that subject ids are similar to identities and both are
>> different from user ids ?
>> If so, are subject ids really process ids ?
>
>Subject ids have *always* been process ids. The reason that subject ids
>aren't used more actively is a failure of persistence.

There is a lot of terminology proliferation, so far I've seen "process
ids", "subject ids", and "principal ids". Could we try to use a single
term to avoid confusion, or define each one precisely ?

val


>
>_______________________________________________
>cap-talk mailing list
>cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
>http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk