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

Re: Matter of DN and what's possible

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:42:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0B3513.5090302@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/9/12 1:35 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> 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.
  One point re. the above. Imagine the following scenario:

I have a sparql construct URL as my address (and compacted using a 
shortener), and a HTTP URI based Name as the subject Name. Both URIs 
placed in SAN of my x.509 cert. Would your verifier work? Do you deem 
this acceptable re. WebID spec as it currently stands?

Note: the SPARQL URL resolves to a description graph. The other URI is 
the Subject described by said graph.



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 Monday, 9 January 2012 18:43:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:29 UTC