Re: Federation protocols

On 1 June 2013 04:01, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:

> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1 June 2013 01:10, Mike Macgirvin <mike@macgirvin.com <mailto:
>> mike@macgirvin.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I pointed this out earlier but it got lost in the interim
>>     discussion - from a Red point of view, any DNS-based name is
>>     transient. So we cannot easily inter-operate in your DNS-based
>>     world. I am "Mike Macgirvin".  At the moment I might be located at
>>     mike@zothub.com <mailto:mike@zothub.com> - tomorrow I might post
>>     from george@jetson.com <mailto:george@jetson.com>; and still be
>>
>>     seen to my friends as Mike Macgirvin. If you
>>     subscribe/follow/whatever either of these webfinger ids from a
>>     traditional "federated social network", you'll miss many of my
>>     posts, and I won't see many of yours. They're going to or from a
>>     different DNS-based location. We didn't do this to be different,
>>     we did this because of a clear need in our communities for such
>>     mobility.
>>
>>
>> The limitations of DNS are apparent, however it does have advantages too.
>>  Not least that it has a massive network.  It seems problematic to build a
>> social network that is not based on DNS.  It is a common strategy to try
>> and reinvent DNS, tho no one has done it yet, and I suspect no one will
>> have done it in 5 years time either. However, I may have completely
>> misunderstood your point :)
>>
>> As an aside, we still dont really know what webfinger is going to be, it
>> has not yet become an IETF standard and I think it's felt there are some
>> critical shortcoming, which may or may not get fixed shortly, time will tell
>>
>>
>>     Some will respond that WebID is the obvious solution - not really.
>>     I don't want to carry an identity dongle with me when I'm at the
>>     university in the computer lab.
>>
>>
>> You may want to update your understanding of WebID. WebID has evolved to
>> just be about using HTTP identifiers as profiles, similar to tent.io <
>> http://tent.io>.  Dongles and other authentication methods are
>> orthogonal.
>>
>
> You know there are URI (and other) schemes that DON'T involve DNS or
> hostnames.  A few that come to mind:
> pretty much all the URN schemes
> X.500 & LDAP directories
> CNRP (Common Name Resolution Protocol) - http://tools.ietf.org/html/**
> rfc3367 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3367>
> the "tag" UI scheme RFC4151
> digital object identifiers (DOIs)
> UUIDs
>
> Of course they all beg the question of how to maintain a namespace, and
> then maintaining resolution infrastructure, and all those nasty issues of
> distinguishing among multiple people with the same name.


Sure but the web can incorporate such scheme much as webmail incorporated
the email protocols, or how google+ incorporated xmpp.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>
>