W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Thoughts on Discovery

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:25:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhL7o6aTRnPFMd5xXfTkDjzs-x8qZQE1UqAq6PrCY_+TLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 28 March 2016 at 12:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:

> There have been some good discussions around the correct technology for
> the discovery of a receiving account (ledger).
> The current proposal is to to use WebFinger (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7033) which is the basis for discovery in
> a variety of web based protocols such as OpenID Connect.

Which are the variety of web protocols webfinger is the basis for?

Every system ive seen use this is what I would call "dead on arrival", I
dont expect interledger to fair much better.  I've also never seen
webfinger implemented correctly or work with other webfinger

More data points would be interesting.

> There has been a proposal to use JSON-LD however it is unclear at this
> stage how this would be done as JSON-LD is not a protocol, it is a data
> format for linked data.

Im not sure what's unclear here.  It doesnt have to be json based, it could
be any type of linked data.  In fact, Im moving more to turtle personally,
at this point.

> There have also been suggestions to explore other existing lower level
> discovery protocols such as DDDS based on DNS.

I think reinventing DNS should be out of scope.

> I've been having this debate for about 10 years in various groups related
> to payments, identity and other more obscure use cases. The reality is that
> there is no one discovery protocol appropriate for all use cases.

Why not?  Id strongly disagree here, linked data is the discovery mechanism
of the web.  Not seeing the issue, I suppose, other than NIH.

> In an ideal world there would be an entirely decentralised registry
> (noting that DNS is not) that could be used as the primary source of truth
> for resolving a human readable identifier into something that can be used
> by a machine to accomplish some specific goal.
> I don't believe it's the goal of this group to solve this problem but if
> we feel the current proposal of Webfinger is inappropriate for resolving an
> account@ledger identifer into a ledger address then let's find a a better
> alternative.

Webfinger doesnt resolve the account@ledger identifer.  So, now Im
wondering what problem you are trying to solve.

> But, before we get into a religious debate about the choice of technology
> I'd suggest we agree on what the requirements and design goals are for this
> discovery protocol.
> This discovery protocol is intended to be simple and form part of a basic
> application layer payments protocol we're developing called OWPS which also
> has a stated design goal of being simple and addressing only a select set
> of use cases.
> As I have stated in a separate thread, nothing prevents us from taking the
> plunge and trying to develop a far richer application layer protocol that
> incorporates more complex systems of discovery.
> Finally, if there are alternative proposals to WebFinger please let's see
> them in action. All of the Interledger code is being developed in the open
> so it should be possible to fork the project you're interested in and
> implementing an alternative proposal for everyone to review.
I have already created an implementation and demoed it in another working
group.  My aim is to do the same with payments / inter ledger, as I
integrate it with Solid.  I'll post a demo when it's ready.
Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 21:26:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 March 2016 21:26:24 UTC