Presence and IntComm WG

[Ben Teitelbaum <>]

Jeremy George 
<>
 writes:

>    For sundry reasons I've been re-reading last fall's Reconnections
> workshop report (http://security.internet2.edu/rtp/docs/
> internet2-reconnections-proceedings-200603.html) .  Under the THEMES
> heading there is a sub-heading on Federation.
>
>    The first sentence is about federation and the second is, in effect,
> about presence.  I guess I'm very late to the party in wondering about
> the relationship between federation and presence?  Is federation presence
> writ large (or vice versa)?
>

"Federation" means many things to many people, but as I read the
paragraph to which you refer ...

  "There is a growing sense that the future of network connectivity is
  in white lists and black lists, implemented via federated trust
  systems. (Gray observes that protection measures implemented for
  email tend to show up at layer 3 about two years later.) Buddy lists
  in IM are perhaps an even better example of application-layer
  security providing inspiration for future network security
  paradigms."

... I don't hear anything deeper than "buddy lists are an example of
an application-layer white list".


>    How does the social tussle play into this?  Are there architectural
> interplay considerations between the federation and presence?  E.g.,
> should a federation between my employer and some other enterprise affect
> my presence?
>
>    I realize I've been away from the party for awhile.  Has this all been
> hashed out?  Anyone got a pointer to the answers?
>

We had a call last Fall on the theme of presence and federations and
created a taxonomy of interpretations.  See the second half of:

https://mail.internet2.edu/wws/arc/wg-pic/2005-10/msg00021.html

It would be great to build on this work and create a whitepaper.

-- ben

-- 
Ben Teitelbaum   http://people.internet2.edu/~ben/