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

Re: Matter of DN and what's possible

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:35:34 +0100
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <DF1690ED-016E-4007-BF50-2321A490BA02@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 9 Jan 2012, at 19:21, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 1/9/12 1:10 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> Well what does the SIA point to? A URN perhaps?
> 
> Why?
> It holds an Address. A URL. A URI functioning as a Data Source Name with one level of indirection as opposed to > 1 level of indirection (which is what you get with an HTTP URI based Name).
> 
>>  Otherwise how do you solve the problem of the "luxury of URIs"?
> 
> By disambiguating Name and Address in the certificate. The SAN holds the Name. and sIA the Address. This is simply for situations where the subject of the cert. can't place a full fidelity Linked Data URI in SAN.

Ok. So now you have two URLs where before we had one. That is why the previous talk about URIs being a luxury does not make sense. Your solution requires more of them.

>> And if it is a URL then why is that not just the place of a WebID then?
> 
> Because you will ultimately quibble about its complexity.

Why, I have always supported multiple SANs in the certificate. No issue there.

> Let's close here, as I need to get stuff implemented, and my team needs my attention.
> 
> You'll see the end product, as per usual via our implementation.

Ok. I suppose that is as much as we'll learn here. 

Henry


Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 18:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 January 2012 18:36:08 GMT