- From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:08:45 +0200
- To: public-fedsocweb@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20130601090845.32656.1676@bastian.jones.dk>
Hi all, Jonas from Debian here, Quoting Mikael Nordfeldth (2013-06-01 08:47:59) > 2013-06-01 07:57 skrev Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak: > > Exactly. I think using URI (with an optional "username@" part) as > > UID makes sense and doe snot tie us to DNS. Think of the TOR network > > - nothing is stopping anybody from using 'user@example.onion' as an > > UID, and that is *completely* outside the DNS hierarchy. The "shape" > > of the UID doesn't mean it is anchored in the current DNS system. > > I am curious here how one would verify - and correctly correlate to > others in a network - the identity of a federated user if they had a > purely human-assigned string such as blah@blaha.bla > > I wish to argue (and Diaspora had somewhat the same idea I think?) > that the real identity should be a more definitive - more computery - > identifier string. Otherwise it will not be truly portable (avoiding > collisions in a global namespace). One tried and true solution for > this are GPG identities, which may be combined with WebFinger or > whatever other lookup process/service/protocol. > > I.e. as long as I control the domain "hethane.se" I can setup an ID > pointer there for mmn@hethane.se to address GPG fingerprint AE68 9813 > 0B7C FCE3 B2FA 727B C7CE 635B B52E 9B31 - and then something which > negotiates this with any feed subscribers in a cryptographically > verifiable way. > > Then I could, say, have an "alias" for my account at a webfingerish > lookup at my account on "mmn@freesocial.org". I would argue that only identifier need be interoperable - verification of identifier can happen differently on each subsystem. Some want public recognition and therefore public verifiability, while others want the very opposite: resistence against tracking. > This'd also give content privacy by encrypting to friends' public > keys. However it would not really address the identify-by-source > issues that may be of concern to some. (i.e. that the network may know > that two individuals are communicating, despite not knowing the > content) Exactly! Let's settle on common identifier but leave verification to each implementation or to overlay systems like [Monekeusphere]. - Jonas [Monkeysphere]: http://web.monkeysphere.info/ -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 09:07:26 UTC