Streamlining Identity Management Keypair Maps Independent Of Contexts

Hey guys! Let's dive into a crucial discussion about streamlining identity management in our system. Currently, identities are tied exclusively to the contexts they belong to, making it a real pain to reuse them across different contexts. Many applications would seriously benefit from having the ability to maintain distinct groupings of identities while keeping individual identities consistent across these groupings. It's like having your keys on separate keychains but still being able to use the same key for multiple locks – super handy, right? Identity management is a foundational aspect of any secure and scalable system, and our current approach has some limitations we need to address. The core issue is that private keypairs are scoped to contexts, which leads to a fragmented user experience, especially when dealing with subcontexts or scenarios where identity reuse is desired. Imagine a user having to create a new identity for every subcontext they join – that’s a UX nightmare we definitely want to avoid. To address this, we're exploring a more robust and flexible approach to identity management that decouples keypairs from contexts. This would allow for a smoother user experience and enable more complex identity-related functionalities. Think about the possibilities: users could easily manage their identities across different contexts, applications could maintain distinct groupings of identities while ensuring individual identities remain consistent, and we could introduce new features like identity recovery and key rotation with greater ease.

The Core Idea: Decoupling Keypairs from Contexts

Instead of keeping the private component of the keypair scoped to the context, like it is now, we're thinking of creating a new database column for arbitrary keypairs. Check out the current implementation here and the DB column reference here. This would let you receive and apply any number of invitation payloads, solving the UX nightmare of needing to create an identity before joining every subcontext. The current system, where identities are tied to specific contexts, presents several challenges. For example, if a user wants to participate in multiple contexts, they need to create and manage separate identities for each one. This not only adds complexity for the user but also increases the overhead of identity management for the system. Imagine a scenario where a user is part of several different communities, each represented by a context. With the current system, they would need to juggle multiple identities, which can be confusing and cumbersome. Decoupling keypairs from contexts would streamline this process, allowing users to use the same identity across multiple contexts. This streamlined approach offers numerous benefits. It simplifies the user experience, reduces the administrative overhead, and opens up new possibilities for identity-related features. For instance, it would be much easier to implement features like identity recovery and key rotation if keypairs were managed independently of contexts. Moreover, it would allow for more flexible identity grouping and management, enabling applications to maintain distinct groupings of identities while ensuring individual identities remain consistent across contexts. This is particularly useful in scenarios where users need to maintain different personas or roles within different contexts. Overall, decoupling keypairs from contexts is a significant step towards a more robust, flexible, and user-friendly identity management system.

More Robust Identity Management: The Proposed Commands

As a result, we should have more robust identity management. Let's look at some potential commands we could implement:

• identity new: This command would generate a new keypair and display the public key, just like the current system. It's the foundation for creating new identities and getting them into the system. The identity new command is crucial for onboarding new users or creating new personas within the system. It should be designed to be user-friendly and provide clear feedback to the user, such as displaying the newly generated public key and any relevant information about the identity. Under the hood, this command would generate a new keypair, store it securely in the database, and associate it with a unique identifier. The public key would then be made available to the user for use in various contexts. We might also consider adding options to specify the type of keypair to generate (e.g., RSA, ECC) or to provide custom metadata for the identity. This flexibility would allow users to tailor their identities to specific needs and use cases. For example, a user might want to generate a different type of keypair for a high-security application compared to a low-security one. Similarly, adding custom metadata could allow users to add descriptions, tags, or other information to their identities, making them easier to manage and identify.
• identity rm/del/remove: This would remove the keypair from the local node. But here's the million-dollar question: what should happen with the key once it's removed? Should it be printed? Backed up? Definitely worth pondering! The identity rm/del/remove command is essential for managing and revoking identities. When a user no longer needs an identity or if it has been compromised, they need a way to securely remove it from the system. This command would handle the process of removing a keypair from the local node, but the crucial part is deciding what happens to the key after removal. This is a complex decision with several factors to consider. One option is to simply delete the keypair permanently. This would provide the highest level of security, as there would be no way for the key to be recovered and potentially misused. However, this also means that the user would lose access to any contexts or resources associated with that identity. Another option is to print the keypair to the console or store it in a backup file. This would allow the user to recover the identity if needed, but it also introduces a security risk. If the printed keypair or backup file is compromised, an attacker could impersonate the user. A third option is to encrypt the keypair and store it securely in a vault or other secure storage. This would provide a balance between security and recoverability. The user could recover the identity if needed, but the keypair would be protected from unauthorized access. Ultimately, the best approach depends on the specific security requirements and risk tolerance of the system and its users. We need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option and choose the one that provides the best balance between security, usability, and recoverability.
• identity ls/list: This command would simply list the public keys, giving you an overview of your identities. The identity ls/list command is a fundamental tool for identity management. It provides users with a simple way to view their existing identities and their associated public keys. This is essential for tasks like verifying identities, sharing public keys with others, and managing access to different contexts. The output of this command should be clear, concise, and easy to understand. It should display the public keys in a format that is easy to copy and paste, as well as any other relevant information, such as the identity's unique identifier or any associated metadata. We might also consider adding options to filter or sort the list of identities based on different criteria, such as creation date, last used date, or associated context. This would allow users to quickly find the identities they are looking for, especially when they have a large number of identities. For example, a user might want to list only the identities that have been used in the last month or only the identities that are associated with a specific context. Overall, the identity ls/list command should be designed to be a simple yet powerful tool for managing and viewing identities.
• identity export [id?]: Should we print it? Dump it to JSON? This command would allow users to export their identities for backup or transfer. The identity export [id?] command is crucial for enabling users to back up their identities, transfer them to different systems, or share them with others (if appropriate). This command raises the question of how the identity should be exported. Should it be printed to the console, dumped to a JSON file, or perhaps offered in other formats like PEM? Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Printing the identity to the console is the simplest option, but it is also the least secure. The identity would be displayed in plain text, making it vulnerable to interception or accidental disclosure. Dumping the identity to a JSON file is a more secure option, as the file can be encrypted or stored in a secure location. However, it requires the user to have a way to handle JSON files. Offering other formats like PEM could improve interoperability with other systems and tools. We also need to consider what information should be included in the exported identity. Should it include only the private key, or should it also include the public key, the identity's unique identifier, and any associated metadata? Including more information would make the exported identity more complete, but it would also increase the risk of accidental disclosure. Ultimately, the best approach depends on the specific security requirements and use cases. We need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option and choose the one that provides the best balance between security, usability, and interoperability.
• identity add/import: This command would allow users to import identities, either from JSON or via CLI parameters. The identity add/import command is the counterpart to the identity export command, allowing users to import identities into the system. This is essential for restoring backups, transferring identities between systems, or importing identities created elsewhere. Similar to the export command, this command raises questions about the supported import formats. Should we support importing from JSON, CLI parameters, or other formats? Importing from JSON is a common and flexible approach, as JSON is a widely used data format that can represent complex data structures. This would allow users to import identities that have been exported from the system or created using other tools. Importing via CLI parameters would allow for simpler and more direct importing, but it might be less flexible for complex identities or large amounts of data. We also need to consider how to handle potential conflicts when importing identities. What happens if the identity already exists in the system? Should we overwrite the existing identity, create a new identity with a different identifier, or prompt the user for a decision? The approach should be consistent with other identity management commands and provide a clear and predictable user experience. Finally, we need to ensure that the import process is secure. We should validate the imported data to prevent malicious identities from being imported into the system. This might involve checking the format of the data, verifying the signatures, or performing other security checks. Overall, the identity add/import command should be designed to be a flexible, secure, and user-friendly tool for importing identities into the system.

Other Considerations: Context Identity Aliases

Here's another thing to chew on: Should we migrate context identity aliases to this global identity map? I'm personally leaning towards no. But then, do we create a new alias map for this one? Is there any benefit to doing so? This is a key question as we move forward. The current system uses context identity aliases to provide a way to refer to identities within a specific context. These aliases can be useful for simplifying commands and improving the user experience. However, migrating these aliases to a global identity map could introduce complexity and potential conflicts. If we move to a global identity map, we need to carefully consider how to handle aliases. Should we create a new alias map specifically for the global identity map, or should we try to integrate the aliases into the existing context identity aliases? Creating a new alias map would keep the two systems separate, but it could also lead to duplication and inconsistencies. Integrating the aliases into the existing system could be more efficient, but it could also introduce complexity and potential conflicts. Ultimately, the best approach depends on the specific design goals and the overall architecture of the system. We need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option and choose the one that provides the best balance between usability, efficiency, and maintainability. This decision will have a significant impact on the user experience and the overall complexity of the identity management system. Therefore, it's crucial to have a clear understanding of the implications of each approach before making a final decision.

Let's keep this discussion rolling, guys! Your thoughts and insights are super valuable.