Re: FSW CG now has 100 members

On 30 June 2013 18:33, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> Excerpts from Melvin Carvalho's message of 2013-06-30 13:37:05 +0000:
> > 1. Facebook style (bidirectional) : user sends a friend request, request
> is
> > either rejected or accepted -- this is what people are most used to today
> >
> > 2. Microblog style (unidirectional) : user follows someone on a network,
> > this can be reciprocated or not -- google plus also does this
> currently facebook support both options, one can either just "Follow"
> (some people disable it for their profiles) or "+1 Add Friend" which sends
> friend request and automatically "Follows" another person...
>
> > "Activity streams solves that." -- No it doesnt, but it may in future.
> >
> > The more fundamental part of this is that one system needs to know how a
> > user is identified on another system.  Easy, right?  No, wrong!  Because
> > everyone has a different way of identifying users.
> i agree :)
>
> >
> > Most people tend to work with local identifiers, and that works find if
> > you're dealing with the same protocol.  But more problematic when trying
> to
> > federate (hint: this is why we dont federate! :)).  Some people overload
> > "email style: identifiers (which is a little better) because users can
> type
> > this into a form, but even there there's confusion ie is it user@host or
> > mailto:user@host or acct:user@host or xmpp:user@host ... all too often
> when
> > asked about identity people cannot give an answer, or just come back with
> > 'its complicated'.
> i have impression that you may exaggerate here a little ;)
> from what i have seen in implementations, people acting as 'users' don't
> need to type any URI scheme, usually form field just requires user@host ,
> in a browser i already send it this way in From: header so maybe at some
> point I wouldn't even need to type this one!
> i remember you sharing venn diagram once presenting email style and http
> identifiers and their adoption...
>
>
> > Identity is more complicated that it seems, but it need not be.  I think
> > this is an area where standardization can help.  If each system can say
> > "Here are the identifiers that we accept, and here are the ones ones we
> > dont accept", everyone can know who they are able to federate with.
> > Presently it's hard! :)
> myself i don't mind using both identifiers:
> https://wwelves.org/perpetual-tripper (I still need to make it valid
> WebID)
> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org (I still need to setup proper webfinger and
> persona endpoints on that domain)
>
> i find interesting that webfinger spec went HTTPS only path, but WebID
> also allows HTTP
>
> BTW we might try to coordinate with people running last few years:
> http://www.internetidentityworkshop.com
>

You are interchanging at least three different concepts.

1) A primary key for identity
2) An address to deliver messages
3) A string to enter into a form

As a human you may find this super intuitive.  But as a machine you need
more.  You simply need to know which strings are valid as identity and
which are invalid.  In a central system, these distinctions do not matter.
But in federation they become critical.  That's where standardization has
traditionally added value so that everyone can have an consistent idea of
what the other means.


>
> ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>
>