W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

RE: self-signed

From: Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:16:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4EA804DC019F8849B3304E28D3AA20FE015CE435@bbcxues15.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
To: "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <public-xg-webid@w3.org>

> That's really DoD. IMHO. re., any version of WebID that exits this this 
> IG. It has zero effect on me (personally) or my corporate entity 
> (OpenLink). The only loser will be the WebID protocol itself :-(

Why?

Are you seriously saying that you will _only_ publish your WebID FOAF document through some protocol which isn't http-based?

Bear in mind that WebFinger is an indirection mechanism. What happens if you resolve that indirection at cert-generation time to begin with, and shift that burden to the servers (to allow greater dynamism, i.e., that the thing could move around at will) later on?

What is the actual scenario which makes http/s-only WebID as a starting point dead in the water for you & OpenLink?

What scenario do you forsee causing it to be so utterly difficult to add other schemes well ahead of WebID actually gaining traction?

M.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 19:16:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:24 UTC