W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > January 2012

Re: WebID equivalence

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:18:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4F03A8E5.1070603@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/3/12 7:43 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> Henry,
>>> >>  Ah you want me to imagine doing the opposite of what the X509 spec says one should do?
>> >  
>> >  Of course not!
>> >  
>>> >>  Put URIs in the DN and human readable names in the SAN???
>> >  
>> >  Of course not!
>> >  
>> >  I am saying, and I was pretty darn clear about this:
>> >  Put Addresses in the DN.
> But that's not what they are for. In any case what practical value does this bring?
>
>> >  Put Names in the SAN. Instead of mandating de-referencable Names. Hence my reference to URN inclusion.
> Well the SAN is defined already in X509. We can but URI's there. That's what we are doing. And it all works fine.
>
>
>> >  
>>> >>  
>>> >>  Come on. You're joking right?
>> >  Digest my comments properly. I couldn't be clearer about what I am suggesting.
> yes, it's clear. And a -1 from me, no practical value.

I didn't ask for anyone's vote. Let alone subjective commentary devoid 
of proper understanding of the problem at hand.

Look, there is a degree of myopia creeping into this endeavor that 
antithetical to what I find interesting.

You believe in disruptive revolution. I don't. I believe in pragmatic 
evolution and broad engagement. I don't see WebID as a vehicle for 
disruptive revolution. Clearly you do!

BTW -- putting OpenLink Software aside, how many industry players 
actually use WebID in any capacity?


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:18:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:18:53 GMT