W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Request for Review of WebID specs before publishing

From: Erich Bremer <erich@ebremer.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:41:01 -0400
Message-ID: <522A2FCD.9090604@ebremer.com>
To: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
On that note, should we add language to support certificate revocation 
lists in the cert ontology?
See: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt
3.3 Revocation
and
5.3.1. Reason Code

    CRLReason ::= ENUMERATED {
         unspecified             (0),
         keyCompromise           (1),
         cACompromise            (2),
         affiliationChanged      (3),
         superseded              (4),
         cessationOfOperation    (5),
         certificateHold         (6),
              -- value 7 is not used
         removeFromCRL           (8),
         privilegeWithdrawn      (9),
         aACompromise           (10) }

If like you say, someone breaks RSA (like NSA ;-), how do we indicate in a standardize way to the WebID community why a key was disabled?  Deleting a key cuts off any issues, but if I am trying to validate why Henry posted something "not so nice" about me onhttps://my-profile.eu/  on 11/1/2013, it could have been a hacker who stole his private key.  Henry then, with CRL language in his WebID profile could indicate that a particular key was compromised on 11/2/2013 with a "cACompromise". Now instead of guessing, I have an idea that it wasn't probably him.  - Erich



On 09/06/13 3:22 PM, Andrei Sambra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Erich Bremer <erich@ebremer.com 
> <mailto:erich@ebremer.com>> wrote:
>
>
>               https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/tls-respec.html
>
>
>               2.2.1.1Cryptographic Vocabulary
>
>     "The following properties/should/be used when conveying the
>     relation between theSubject
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/tls-respec.html#dfn-subject>and
>     his or her key, withinWebID Profile
>     <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/tls-respec.html#dfn-webid_profile>documents:"
>
>     Shouldn't "SHOULD" be "MUST"?  - Erich
>
>
> Good question!
>
> I've been recently thinking about that section. I think SHOULD is ok 
> for now, as long as we mention that WebID-TLS supports multiple 
> encryption algorithms that are available for TLS.
>
> And now...what if tomorrow we find out that a new attack completely 
> breaks RSA? This is probably a question that we can ask once we move 
> to a WG.
>
> Andrei
>
>
>
>
>     On 09/05/13 9:52 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>     Dear WebID Community Group,
>>
>>        we now have three specs up on github here
>>
>>         https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/index.html
>>
>>     All editors think that it is time to publish a new version
>>     on the W3C WebID Incubator space, to finalise the distinction
>>     between WebID, WebID-TLS, and the cert ontology.
>>
>>     So we would like to be able to publish the specs above
>>     at the following location, by Friday 20 September 2013
>>
>>        http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/
>>
>>     We would be very happy to receive feedback from
>>     the community before doing so. If you can spot
>>     any errors or improvements please let us know,
>>     we'll do our best to get them in before publication.
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>     		Henry Story
>>
>>
>>     Social Web Architect
>>     http://bblfish.net/
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 19:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:52 UTC