W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Re: decentralised

From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:21:38 +0100
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2609c1a7-ee96-7fe7-4907-0087270b47f2@kent.ac.uk>

On 14/06/2016 11:18, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 14 Jun 2016, at 09:30, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/06/2016 19:36, Dave Longley wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2016 10:30 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
>>>> I'm listening to: http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2016-06-08/
>>>> @~40 minutes an issue about whether or not the Decentralised
>>>> identifier methodology works and until their is something that exists
>>>> with a million or so use it - it's a research project..
>>>> So, Internet protocol and the Domain Name Server methodology, how's
>>>> that not a decentralised identifier system for machines?
>>> It is, but it's not self-sovereign.
>>> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/webdht/
>>> "The Web currently does not have a mechanism where people and
>>> organizations can claim identifiers that they have sole ownership over.
>>> Identifiers, such as those rooted in domain names like emails addresses
>>> and website addresses, are effectively rented by people and
>>> organizations rather than owned. Therefore, their use as long-term
>>> identifiers is dependent upon parameters outside of their control. One
>>> danger is that if the rent is not paid, all data associated with the
>>> identifier can be made temporarily or permanently inaccessible. This
>>> document specifies a mechanism where people and organizations can
>>> cryptographically claim ownership over identifiers such that they
>>> control them and the documents that they refer to."
>> Is the decentralised registry mandatory to use in our model?

Taking Henry's reply into account, let me rephrase the question.

Is the registry (of any type) mandatory to use in our model.


>> How do public keys fit into this model? If my device creates its own key
>> pair, and I am the only person in control of the private key, why would
>> I 'need' to claim ownership of this by registering the public key in the
>> decentralised register. It 'might' be advantageous to me if I want
>> everyone to know this key (like a PGP key store is for PGP keys), but it
>> might also be disadvantageous to me, if I want my keys to obey the same
>> origin policy, as in the FIDO model.
> This is a side issue. If the ontology is well developed it should be equally
> possible to publish the key in a "centralised" DNS-like system or decentralised
> one. The semantic web is based on URIs that can work with any naming system, and
> any protocol. 
> So though I welcome WebDHT or namecoin, one can get quite most of the work done
> without needing to take sides on this issue, or on which protocol will succeed
> as the most successful naming protocol after DNS, if any.
> Henry
>> regards
>> David
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2016 11:21:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:53 UTC