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

RE: [foaf-protocols] WebID test suite

From: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:39:01 -0700
Message-ID: <snt143-w64775A560E090A04F7E96892560@phx.gbl>
To: <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>


So I half believe in webid as a IDP service - in which the IDP performs the steps of the spec. It then asserts, having reduced a foaf card to set of claims, in some attribute naming model. This model is a variation of the GRID work done in Internet2 for 5+ plus (convert client cert into assertion, to overcome interfering https proxies). I dont believe in the proxy certs model though - as technically fascinating as it is/was - but but because as it totally failed in the Grid world where it was properly funded and had lots of political support. I do believe in the cascaded IDP service model, in which one IDP assert to a bridge that recasts claims from one naming regime to another, to better suit the target resource server. do use one of the standard assertion formats. Dont make a custom profile of it. A good test is that if you use openid or ws-fedp that it works with Microsoft ACS as the assertion consuming party. if y ou choose SAML2 (now commodity in windows!), ensure it works with ADFS as the assertion consuming engine. These products (ACS and ADFS) are "final stage" products, way post-research phase, entering the market at the commodization point defined as one that maximizes interoperability. if you can inter with them, you stand a good change of inteworking with the vast majority of other vendor's equivalent implementations. If you make your own assertion blob format, be prepared to duke it out with all the other last mile integration kits for web frameworks  (all doing the same thing... in general).    Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:25:34 +0100
From: kidehen@openlinksw.com
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID test suite



  


    
  
  
    On 6/28/11 7:07 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
    
      
      
        

        The way I see it is we keep arguing this position - and its
        simply that ldap is the flash point (rather than anything
        important). Having argued the need to deal with the web as it
        is, not the web as it should be,  we find the group goes back -
        by ones means or another 0 to the assumptions of the linked data
        movement (at the next meeting of the linked data types).

         

        My problem is I no longer believe this group will have any
        impact this year (or next) - becuase I see research thinking.
        Its fine as a research project; but there are 10 of those to
        follow.

      
    
    

    I don't know about the group, but we are planning impact right now
    let alone this year.

    

    I have a reply to Henry in my outbox. I just need the verify the
    live service during my working vacation. Basically the is a live
    service, I just need to give it my blessing post final tests.

    

    Henry stayed tuned. Please note, we made GRDDL implementation years
    ago as part of our middleware offering, as I continue to state,
    these are just approaches to middleware. Not being GRDDL doesn't
    negate anything in the middleware game with protocols, data access,
    and data representation.

    

    Stay tuned for when I get back from my walk and dinner :-)

    

    Kingsley

    
       

        
          Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:18:44 +0100

          From: kidehen@openlinksw.com

          To: public-xg-webid@w3.org

          Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID test suite

          

          
          On 6/28/11 6:53 AM, Henry Story wrote:
          

            
              On 28 Jun 2011, at 03:10, Peter Williams wrote:
              
              
                  
                    

                       I think you keep ignoring the fact that from time
                      eternal browsers have had ldap clients built in,
                      using LDAP URLs.

                    
                  
                
              

              
              I don't ignore it. I even mentioned the ldap url as
                being a possibility for a WebId.
            
          
          

          Not a possibility, unless you are truly ignoring the fact that
          we already support ldap: scheme URIs (as SAN placed WebIDs) in
          our implementation of WebID. As I keep on saying: URIs are
          sacrosanct. An IdP is the one to decide which schemes it can
          handle as part of its implementation of the WebID protocol. 

          

          
            

              
                  
                     

                      The issue is not ldap. its the fact that
                      directories, whether ifs foaf cards, vcards,
                      micro-formats, or any other projection of the
                      directory record stuggle, becuase the security
                      model was not a good social fit. Im convinced
                      websso has got the the heart of that fit problem.
                      And, thus, as you assert, ldap becomes an
                      "attribute source", no different to sql or a foaf
                      card.

                    
                  
                
              

              
              Yes, people don't want to open their ldap directories
                to anyone without protection. But they can only open
                them globally if they have something like WebID, and if
                they have a data format that allows for global
                linkability.
            
          
          

          Yes, and that's achievable and implemented by us already.

          

          
            
               Ldap started off in the 1980 before the web, and was
                extended without ever fixing these problems, which of
                course are difficult to fix. The Web was designed as a
                hyperdocument platform from the begninning.
            
          
          

          Yes, so you can transform data to many representations once
          its clear that the base schema is really conceptual rather
          than syntactic. Basically, logic delivers the  conceptual
          schema. 

          

          
            

              
                  
                     

                      Now, what is intresting is that we keep expecting
                      foaf cards (which are just serialized directory
                      records, using a non-LDIF format) to find a fit,
                      somehow addressing what failed in the ldap world.
                    
                  
                
              

              
              Foaf is based on RDF, which is designed for Linked Data
              (hyperdata) scenarios.

              

              
              Of course Ldap can participate too, but it would to
                need to give a clear mapping into the semweb, ie to give
                semantics so that users from one ldap system can
                communicate clearly - and without prior agreement on
                vocabulary - with another ldap system. But as I don't
                think this is done yet, I think we can skip ldap as a
                priority for the moment.  

              
            
          
          

          The spec just has to be agnostic re. URI schemes. The support
          of any scheme re. WebID is an implementation matter for an IdP
          that supports the WebID protocol. That's really it. URIs are
          sacrosanct. Inherently agnostic.

          

          
            
              

              
              If you find some big ldap vendors who really want to
                join, then the W3C may be happy to help them semwebise
                the ldap system, and perhaps ldap urls will combine
                nicely and often with http and https urls. But my guess
                is that you will end up with huge resistance there in
                the ldap world: there will just be too many new things
                to explain to people. Unless it is shown to work clearly
                in the most natural platform - the web - they won't take
                it on.
            
          
          

          We'll be taking our implementation to them :-)

          

          
            
              

              
              And after all who cares whether it is ldap or http
                that is the transport protocol? Certainly not the
                business people who would finance this.  

              
            
          
          

          See my earlier comment. 

          
            
              

              
              

              
              Anyway what has this got to do with the WebID Test
                suite again? Please try to keep the posts on topic.
            
          
          

          Well you'll see that ldap: based WebIDs work with our
          implementation :-)

          

          

          Kingsley

          
            
              

              
              Henry
              

              
              

              
                  
                    This worries me.

                       

                       

                      
                        From: henry.story@bblfish.net

                        Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:43:24 +0200

                        CC: demoss.matt@gmail.com; public-xg-webid@w3.org

                        To: home_pw@msn.com

                        Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID test suite

                        

                        

                        
                          On 26 Jun 2011, at 17:23, Peter Williams
                            wrote:
                          
                          
                              
                                 

                                  The X.509 standard worked worldwide -
                                  albeit mostly amongst universities. It
                                  was probably bigger than is the Shib
                                  world, even today. This seems to have
                                  been before Henry's time (he likes to
                                  tell the story that ldap/dap was never
                                  web scale, not realizing perhaps that
                                  the first directories "on the web"
                                  were http -> ldap -> dap
                                  gateways...).
                              
                            
                          

                          
                          The point is the protocol was not made
                            available directly on the web, in such a way
                            that it could be interoperable directly as
                            ldap. For example TCP/IP works at web scale,
                            so does SMTP which is broken, but ldap is
                            used a bit like SQL databases as a back end.
                            There are logical reasons in the case of
                            LDAP and of SQL for this. But I think you
                            keep ignoring them: the URL.
                          

                          
                          
                              
                                Today, of course, there
                                  are a few 10s of million AD
                                  installations, that we  can expect to
                                  start connecting up quite shortly, now
                                  SAML->AD gateways are going
                                  mainstream. What folks refused to do
                                  (federate and publish directories),
                                  folks seem more willing to do when
                                  SAML claims project said directories
                                  to a limited network of consuming
                                  sites.

                                
                              
                            
                          

                          
                          Perhaps SAML has more of a chance, it
                            uses a few web technologies: XML and
                            namespaces for one. They even started
                            working on a RESTful variant I heard. I am
                            not a specialist of it. 
                          
                              
                                 

                                  X.500 also had both simple and strong
                                  authentication, and the usual user,
                                  consumer (SP) and IDP model. Both
                                  could use signed operations between
                                  the "IDP" agent (the master agent for
                                  the record, in a multi-mastering
                                  world), and the consuming agent - some
                                  service,  today just like a SAML2 SP
                                  server, that wishes to obtain a signed
                                  confirmation that the user knows a
                                  password, compared remotely by the IDP
                                  in return for a signed confirmation
                                  response). The user presented the
                                  password + digested-password to the
                                  consumer (!) seeking access to some
                                  port, and duely the port guard would
                                  issue a compare operation against the
                                  IDP agent. Alternatively, the user
                                  presented a signed token to the
                                  consumer, which verified it in party
                                  by "comparing" the cert against the
                                  cert in the master record. Again, the
                                  IDP would respond to a compare request
                                  with a signed token confirming the
                                  result o comparing the values. Today,
                                  in windows its trivial to issue a
                                  signed SAML "request" to a web service
                                  on an https port, that is then
                                  compared similarly. blog formats have
                                  changed - but the model has not.
                              
                            
                          

                          
                              
                                 

                                  yesterday, I had some fun. In a MSFT
                                  sample project, one has ones client
                                  code create a "self-signed SAML file",
                                  supported by a self-signed cert. One
                                  posts this to a azure serivce, which
                                  verifies the signature and returns
                                  a mac-signed json blob - which one
                                  then posts in the www-auth header to a
                                  rest service. The claims within have
                                  identity, authn and authz
                                  claims. Being done on the OAUTH
                                  endpoint, its a minor variant of the
                                  process to induce the service to
                                  redirect to a website, seeking user
                                  confirmation etc (in the usual OAUTH
                                  backwards-flow SSO flow), There, one
                                  can do webid...validation as a
                                  condition of release the authz
                                  confirmation.

                                  
                                     
                                    If we could get less abstract,
                                      reseachy, and less webby - and
                                      just fit in with the rest of the
                                      web - we'd have a lot more
                                      adoption.
                                  
                                
                              
                            
                          

                          
                          Well there are all these other
                            communities to join where people are happy
                            to do that. 
                          Nobody is saying we can't be
                            interoperable, btw, I don't know why anyone
                            whould thinks so.  But the intersting thing
                            of WebID - as the name hints in a not too
                            shy manner - is the Webiness. Now that does
                            not stop you from storing your data in an
                            sql database, ldap dp, or nosql datastore.
                            We are not concerned about those here. We
                            abstract them so as to be compatible with
                            anything going on behind.
                          

                          
                          Henry
                          

                          
                              
                                
                                  
                                     
                                     
                                    > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:45:46
                                    -0400

                                    > From: demoss.matt@gmail.com

                                    > To: henry.story@bblfish.net

                                    > CC: kidehen@openlinksw.com; public-xg-webid@w3.org

                                    > Subject: Re: [foaf-protocols]
                                    WebID test suite

                                    > 

                                    > >Its spec concepttually
                                    little or no different to using a
                                    directory object from ldap, looking
                                    for existance of a cert value in the
                                    directory attribute..

                                    > 

                                    > >that is why I distinguish -
                                    and we should distinguish more
                                    clearly in the spec - between a
                                    claimed WebID and a verified one. A
                                    WebID presented in the SAN fields of
                                    an X509 certificate is a claimed
                                    WebID.

                                    > The Relying Party/IDP then
                                    fetches the canonical document for
                                    each WebID

                                    > 

                                    > I find the contrast with a
                                    directory object to be particularly

                                    > interesting. It's usually the
                                    case that the CA is trusted to sign
                                    a DN

                                    > that corresponds to a directory
                                    object in a directory we trust to
                                    have

                                    > the correct attributes, but I
                                    would be interested to know more
                                    about

                                    > other systems where (as with
                                    WebID) the trust relationship is a
                                    bit

                                    > different. Do any of the SAML
                                    profiles do something you would
                                    consider

                                    > comparable?

                                    > 

                                    > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:31
                                    PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>

                                    wrote:

                                    > >

                                    > > On 24 Jun 2011, at 22:00,
                                    Kingsley Idehen wrote:

                                    > >

                                    > > On 6/24/11 7:08 PM, Peter
                                    Williams wrote:

                                    > >

                                    > > The defacto owl sameAs
                                    part is really interesting (and its
                                    the semweb part

                                    > > of webid that most
                                    interests me, since its about the
                                    potential logic of

                                    > > enforcement....)

                                    > >

                                    > > are we saying that should
                                    n URIs be present in a cert and one
                                    of them

                                    > > validates to the
                                    satisfaction of the verifying party,
                                    then this combination

                                    > > of events is the
                                    statement: verifer says owl:sameAs
                                    x, where x is each

                                    > > member of the set of SAN
                                    URIs in the cert, whether or not all
                                    x were

                                    > > verified .

                                    > >

                                    > > No.

                                    > >

                                    > > When an IdP is presented
                                    with a Cert, it is going to have its
                                    own heuristic

                                    > > for picking one WebID.
                                    Now, when there are several to
                                    choose from I would

                                    > > expect that any choice
                                    results in a path to a Public Key
                                    -> WebID match.

                                    > > Basically, inference such
                                    as owl:sameAs would occur within the
                                    realm of the

                                    > > IdP that verifiers a
                                    WebID. Such inference cannot be
                                    based on the existence

                                    > > of multiple URIs serving
                                    as WebIDs in SAN (or anywhere else).

                                    > >

                                    > > Yes, that is why I
                                    distinguish - and we should
                                    distinguish more clearly in

                                    > > the spec - between a
                                    claimed WebID and a verified one. A
                                    WebID presented in

                                    > > the SAN fields of an X509
                                    certificate is a claimed WebID.

                                    > > The Relying Party/IDP then
                                    fetches the canonical document for
                                    each WebID.

                                    > > These documents define the
                                    meaning of the WebID, of that URI,
                                    via a

                                    > > definitive description
                                    tying the URI to knowledge of the
                                    private key of the

                                    > > public key published in
                                    the certificate.

                                    > > If the meaning of two or
                                    more URIs is tied to knowledge of
                                    the same public

                                    > > key, then the relying
                                    agent has proven of each of these
                                    URIs that its

                                    > > referent is the agent at
                                    the end of the https connection.
                                    Since that is one

                                    > > agent, the two URIs refer
                                    to the same thing.

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > > Thats quite a claim to
                                    make. An more restrcitied claim
                                    could be that

                                    > >

                                    > > Yes, but I don't believe
                                    the spec infers that.

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > > verifier says webid says
                                    owl:sameAs x, where x is each member
                                    of the set of

                                    > > SAN URIs in the cert,
                                    whether or not all x were verified .

                                    > >

                                    > > No, don't think that's the
                                    implication from spec or what one
                                    would expect to

                                    > > happen.

                                    > >

                                    > > Kingsley

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >
                                    ________________________________

                                    > > From: henry.story@bblfish.net

                                    > > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011
                                    19:12:59 +0200

                                    > > CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org; foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org

                                    > > To: home_pw@msn.com

                                    > > Subject: Re:
                                    [foaf-protocols] WebID test suite

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > > On 24 Jun 2011, at 18:45,
                                    Peter Williams wrote:

                                    > >

                                    > > one thing the spec does
                                    not state is what is correct
                                    behaviour when a

                                    > > consumer is prersented
                                    with a cert with multiple SAN URIs.

                                    > >

                                    > > Well it does say
                                    something, even if perhaps not in
                                    the best way. It says:

                                    > > in 3.1.4

                                    > > "The Verification
                                    Agent must attempt to verify
                                    the public key information

                                    > > associated with at least
                                    one of the claimed WebID URIs.
                                    The Verification

                                    > > Agent may attempt to
                                    verify more than one claimed WebID
                                    URI."

                                    > > then in 3.1.7

                                    > > If the public key in
                                    the Identification
                                    Certificate matches one in the set

                                    > > given by the profile
                                    document graph given above then
                                    the Verification

                                    > > Agentknows that
                                    the Identification Agent is indeed
                                    identified by the WebID

                                    > > URI.

                                    > > I think the language that
                                    was going to be used for this was
                                    the language of

                                    > > "Claimed WebIDs" - the
                                    SANs in the certificate, which each
                                    get verified. The

                                    > > verified WebIDs are the
                                    ones the server can use to identify
                                    the user. They

                                    > > are de-facto owl:sameAs
                                    each other.

                                    > >

                                    > > If the test suite is run
                                    at site A (that cannot connect to a
                                    particular part

                                    > > of the interent, becuase
                                    of proxy rules) presumably the test
                                    suite would

                                    > > provide a different
                                    result to another site which can
                                    perform an act of

                                    > > de-referencing.

                                    > >

                                    > > That is ok, the server
                                    would state declaratively which
                                    WebIDs were claimed

                                    > > and which were verified.
                                    It could state why it could not
                                    verify one of the

                                    > > WebIDs. Network problems
                                    is a fact of life, less likely than
                                    strikes in

                                    > > France - though those have
                                    been not been happening that often
                                    recently - or

                                    > > congestions on the road.

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > > This is a general issue.
                                    The degenrate case occurs for 1 SAN
                                    URI, obviously

                                    > > - since siteA may not be
                                    able to connect to its agent. Thus,
                                    the issue of 1

                                    > > or more multiple URIs is
                                    perhaps not the essential
                                    requirement at issue.

                                    > >

                                    > > A variation of the topic
                                    occurs when a given site (B say) is
                                    using a caching

                                    > > proxy, that returns a
                                    cached copy of a webid document
                                    (even though that

                                    > > document may have been
                                    removed from the web). This is the
                                    topic of trusted

                                    > > caches, upon which it
                                    seems that webid depends.

                                    > >

                                    > > That is what the meta
                                    testing agent will be able to tell.
                                    He will be able to

                                    > > put up WebID profiles log
                                    in somewhere, then login a few days
                                    later after

                                    > > having removed the
                                    profile, or changed it and report on
                                    how the servers

                                    > > respond.

                                    > >

                                    > >  We would look silly
                                    if the average site grants access to
                                    a resource when

                                    > > the identity document has
                                    been removed from the web,

                                    > >

                                    > > It all depends on what the
                                    cache control statements on the
                                    WebID Profile

                                    > > says. If they state they
                                    should last a year, then it is
                                    partly the fault of

                                    > > the WebID profile
                                    publisher. (Could Web Servers offer
                                    buttons to their users

                                    > > to update a cache?)

                                    > > In any case it also
                                    depends on how serious the
                                    transaction is. In a serious

                                    > > transaction it might be
                                    worth doing a quick check right
                                    before the

                                    > > transaction, just in case.

                                    > >

                                    > > yet cache continue to make
                                    consuemr believe that the identity
                                    is valid. At

                                    > > the same time, given the
                                    comments from the US identity
                                    conference (that

                                    > > pinging the internet
                                    during a de-referencing act is
                                    probably

                                    > > unsunstainable), caches
                                    seem to be required (so consuming
                                    sites dont

                                    > > generate observable
                                    network activity).

                                    > >

                                    > > WebID works with caches. I
                                    don't think we could think without.
                                    Even X509

                                    > > works with caches as is,
                                    since really an X509 signed cert is
                                    just a cache of

                                    > > the one offered by the CA.

                                    > >

                                    > > This all seems to be
                                    pointing at the issue that we have a
                                    trusted cache

                                    > > issue at the heart of the
                                    webid proposal, and of course we all
                                    know that the

                                    > > general web is supposed to
                                    be a (semi-trusted at best) cache.

                                    > >

                                    > > Caches need to be taken
                                    into account. But I don't see this
                                    as a major

                                    > > problem.

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >> From: henry.story@bblfish.net

                                    > >> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011
                                    13:37:26 +0200

                                    > >> CC: foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org

                                    > >> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org

                                    > >> Subject: WebID test
                                    suite

                                    > >>

                                    > >> Hi,

                                    > >>

                                    > >> In the spirit of test
                                    driven development, and in order to
                                    increate the

                                    > >> rate at which we can
                                    evolve WebID, we need to develop
                                    test suites and

                                    > >> reports based on those
                                    test suites.

                                    > >>

                                    > >> I put up a wiki page
                                    describing where we are now, where
                                    we want to go.

                                    > >>

                                    > >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/Test_Suite#

                                    > >>

                                    > >> Please don't hesitate
                                    to improve it, and place your own
                                    library test end

                                    > >> points up there - even
                                    if they

                                    > >> are only human
                                    readable.

                                    > >>

                                    > >> The next thing is to
                                    look at the EARL ontology I wrote
                                    and see if your

                                    > >> library can also
                                    generate a test report, that folows
                                    the lead of the one I

                                    > >> put up on bblfish.net. I
                                    expect a lot of detailed criticism,
                                    because I did

                                    > >> just hack this
                                    together. As others implement their
                                    test reports, and as

                                    > >> bergi builds his meta
                                    tests we will quickly notice our
                                    disagreements, and so

                                    > >> be able to discuss
                                    them, and put the results into the
                                    spec.

                                    > >>

                                    > >> Henry

                                    > >>

                                    > >> Social Web Architect

                                    > >> http://bblfish.net/

                                    > >>

                                    > >>

                                    > >
                                    _______________________________________________

                                    > > foaf-protocols mailing
                                    list

                                    > > foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org

                                    > > http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols

                                    > >

                                    > > Social Web Architect

                                    > > http://bblfish.net/

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > > --

                                    > >

                                    > > Regards,

                                    > >

                                    > > Kingsley Idehen 

                                    > > President & CEO

                                    > > OpenLink Software

                                    > > Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

                                    > > Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen

                                    > > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > >

                                    > > Social Web Architect

                                    > > http://bblfish.net/

                                    > >

                                    > 

                                    > 

                                  
                                
                              
                            
                        
                        

                        
                              
                                  
                                      
                                          
                                                    Social Web
                                                      Architect

                                                      http://bblfish.net/
                                                  
                                        
                                    
                                
                            
                        

                      
                    
                  
                
              
            
            

             
                  
                      
                          
                              
                                        Social Web Architect

                                          http://bblfish.net/
                                      
                            
                        
                    
                 
            

          
          

          

          -- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 





        
      
    
    

    

    -- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 




 		 	   		  
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 21:39:31 UTC

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