- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:16:48 +0200
- To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Cc: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 12 June 2011 20:06, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com> wrote: > I think there is an entire topic missing - if one is to respond to the 2 > objections presented (vs hide them under the carpet). > > Its the topic of qualifying the authority component of the webid > claim, persuant to deciding to follow the ref (or not). It concerns > leveraging the authority resolver built into the web - DNS resolvers. It > concerns how DNS resolvers are then organized - whether one is using a > public resolver, or a private-walled-garden resolver that has a "non-public" > zone replication/trust model and/or zone key signing/distribution. > > But, I'm not convinced anyone has accepted the premise of the objection we > are hearing - that refs have to first qualified, before being re-deferenced. > > Im half expecting to hear folks argue: oh the web as a giant dynamic system > will crowdsource whats viable and sustaintable, and the faff and > disrpeputable stuff will eventually converge to zero (if one waits long > enough). And, to be webby, THIS is the premise we MUST accept (rather than > fiddle with DNS authority models, say). Well no, I'd simply suggest that DNS is out of scope. WebID works on a different layer. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 21:17:26 UTC