- From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:25:36 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 6/15/2016 4:31 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > On 14 June 2016 at 16:21, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com > <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote: > > On 06/13/2016 07:33 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: ... > > 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 is not a significant danger. It's like saying the google could > > lose google.com <http://google.com> <http://google.com> due to > factors outside of their > > control. It wont happen, will it? Yes it will. Not often and probably not to vast numbers of people, but of course it will happen. Literally no private organization has ever lasted forever and many that cease to exist do so suddenly and traumatically. That's certain to eventually be a domain name registry, a domain name registrar, or a user's ISP. Even governments fail, of sometimes quite messily. (cf, Soviet Union.) So an operational scenario that relies on perfect continuity of naming administration support is going to be one that is certain, at some point, to demonstrate catastrophic failure. > Yes user@host identifiers are vulnerable to his. My sister actually got > locked out of her gmail because someone else tried to access it. And then there is /that/ scenario. Different details from 'failure of the organization' but same effect on the user. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 11:26:32 UTC