- From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:17:26 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPW_8m6Ne80PBfq7mRGSJG9=ffuqxB24KeSEAGq8Bhe=Q2Hcyg@mail.gmail.com>
Register "webid" as a Link Relation Value and ese the LINK header as in Link: <http://...." rel="webid"> This will make sure you don't step on someone else's header, no-one will step our yours. This will also allow you to include it in the header and (when appropriate) include it within a message body. mamund +1.859.757.1449 skype: mca.amundsen http://amundsen.com/blog/ http://twitter.com/mamund https://github.com/mamund http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeamundsen On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On 3 April 2013 19:18, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> I think the HTTP "From:" header [1] is now truly archaic circa. 2013. If >> the range of this particular predicate was a URI it would really aid our >> quest for a RWW. >> >> Suggestion: >> >> As part of our RWW bootstrap effort, we could consider an "X-From:" >> header that basically takes a URI or Literal value. >> >> I think we can flesh this out across WebID and RWW via implementations >> before moving up to TAG and IETF. >> >> Mark: what do you think, anyway ? :-) >> > > After some investigation on this: > > Here is the current text, which is slightly different from the RFC > > [[ > 5.5.1<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#rfc.section.5.5.1> > From<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#header.from> > > The "From" header field contains an Internet email address for a human > user who controls the requesting user agent. The address ought to be > machine-usable, as defined by "mailbox" in Section 3.4<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4>of > [RFC5322]<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#RFC5322>: > > > From <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#header.from> = mailbox <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#header.from> > > mailbox <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#header.from> = <mailbox, defined in [RFC5322] <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html#RFC5322>, Section 3.4 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4>> > > An example is: > > From: webmaster@example.org > > The From header field is rarely sent by non-robotic user agents. A user > agent *SHOULD NOT* send a From header field without explicit > configuration by the user, since that might conflict with the user's > privacy interests or their site's security policy. > > Robotic user agents *SHOULD* send a valid From header field so that the > person responsible for running the robot can be contacted if problems occur > on servers, such as if the robot is sending excessive, unwanted, or invalid > requests. > > Servers *SHOULD NOT* use the From header field for access control or > authentication, since most recipients will assume that the field value is > public information. > > ]] > > 1. "From" seems to be largely unused according to various sources > > 2. Some people are already using "From" for http URIs > > 3. From my informal straw poll more people are in favour of using HTTP > URIs in From than against (roughly 2 to 1), though those against seem to be > strongly against > > 4. It may be possible to use another header, but that is less intuitive, > and we will need suggestions > > 5. It was pointed out that, what later became known as "WebID" stuffed an > HTTP URI in the header field. > > 6. The User-Agent field is used by spiders such as baidu and google to > give an HTTP URI > > IMHO, this is a valuable use case for identifying on the web, without a > dependency on X.509 certs which are (at least perceived as) very hard to > deploy. If you want strong security use TLS but it need not be mandatory > for more casual usage. A use case might be to get a casual social web > going eg via the tabulator extenstion > So the question is which header to use for identity on the web ... > > >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder & CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen> >> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about> >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 27 May 2013 12:18:23 UTC