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

Re: What is a WebID?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:07:22 -0500
Message-ID: <50987EEA.5040807@openlinksw.com>
To: Natanael Arndt <arndtn@gmail.com>
CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 11/5/12 6:47 PM, Natanael Arndt wrote:
> Am 06.11.2012 00:35, schrieb Nathan:
>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 11/4/12 1:18 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>> Our solutions are interoperable.  Universal does not mean unique!
>>> Wrong again.
>>>
>>> The solutions in question (re. WebID) are no longer interoperable. A
>>> verifier will fault on a hashless URI. It will fault if a profile
>>> document isn't comprised of Turtle content. It will also fault on a
>>> non http: scheme URI.  You seriously regard that as interoperable?
>> This is interesting.
>>
>> I viewed the constraints as setting a minimum bar for interoperability.
>>
>> Let's say HTTP + Turtle + Hash URI was level 1.0 support.
>>
>> Then add in RDF/XML, RDFa, NTriples. JSON-LD to get level 1.8, add in
>> acct: or ftp: to get level 2.2, and so forth.
>>
>> Each serialization and protocol added to the mix increases the power
>> of WebID-protocol, this is a good thing, not to be precluded in any way.
>>
>> The Hash-URI thing is a different issue, there are multiple reasons
>> they have preference, but it's probably worth me mentioning why I am
>> +1 to having hash-http-URIs as the "default" for level 1: It's because
>> I see WebID as tying a URI to both parts of a key pair, the TLS side
>> binds the URI to the private part, the act of dereferencing ties it
>> the URI to the public part, and the public part is already tied to the
>> private part. If a slash URI <a> redirects to another document <b>,
>> then it's <b> that is tied to the public part, not <a> that's in the
>> cert. This to me, opens a lot of questions, and feels like it opens
>> the door to exploits, mitm attacks, and doesn't "prove" uri
>> ownership/control. Hence why I have a strong a want for #hash URIs
>> here. If there's no problem with the redirects and the proofs all work
>> out / it's all good, then I'm happy with either (personal preference
>> will always be hash's of course).
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
> But if I own the URI and place a redirect it is still in my control
> where the redirect is going and I trust the URI where I'm pointing at or
> I make sure it is still under my control. I think a redirect has the
> same level of trust as the choice of the URI in the first place.
>
> (I don't know if my +1 counts and where I can put it, but it would go to
> general URI)
>
> Nate
>
>
>
For the record. +1 :-)

What ultimately matters is satisfying the conditions of the 
authentication protocol. That's it.

-- 

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 Tuesday, 6 November 2012 03:07:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 November 2012 03:07:45 GMT