Re: Federation protocols

On 1 June 2013 20:16, Simon Tennant <simon@buddycloud.com> wrote:

> On 1 June 2013 19:40, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 June 2013 19:23, Simon Tennant <simon@buddycloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You could reinvent the wheel by using HTTP, and then hope that all major
>>> browser makers start including your client side certificate code. I
>>> wouldn't hold my breath.
>>>
>>
>> Im unsure what you mean, all browsers have had client side certs for 10
>> years+.  It's just the UX that is not compelling.
>>
>
> You are right - I see Chrome now supports client side certs.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively you could simply build on federated protocols that already
>>> include strong identity, encryption and dial-back authenticity like XMPP.
>>> And instead spend your energy on designing your interchange messages.
>>>
>>
>> XMPP is a great system.  No problem with hacking on it.  But an HTTP
>> solution is also needed if you want to play in the same league as the big
>> guns.
>>
>
> Not quite sure what you mean by this.
>

I think XMPP is great as part of an overall solution in the FSW.  And I'm
keen that XMPP systems should be able to communicate with other systems.
The JID xmpp:user@host in my view is an excellent choice of identifer, I
can add it to may roster, and there's a well defined way to send the
messages.

But we need solutions in the HTTP space as well.  Facebook for example have
decent solutions in HTTP, email AND XMPP.  It's just a pity it's
centralized and proprietary.


>
> --
> Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
> goo.gl/tQgxP
>