Re: Status-Check

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:30 Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 19 Oct 2017, at 14:35, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Henry / WebID,
>
> What's going on with WebID?
>
>
> I am trying to write a PhD thesis on this area in order to explain to the
> security community
> its' properties in the mathematical language they understand.
>

good for you.  I'm working on a ISOC-SIG to progress things that don't fit
into W3.  I'm hoping this will result in positive steps forward overall...


>
> The WebID community is a nice group, but convincing ourselves that this is
> great is not
> much use to convince the wider world.
>

I've just found that the Digital-Signatures work has moved around a bit,
and i'm not 100% on board with the DID work (whilst admitting, i haven't
fully investigated it).  it was my view, what is now many years ago, that
the ability to build-out signed documents was an important constituent to
'identity' and that aptly, the requirement at the time was to change the
terms as to ensure the scope was 'verifiable claims'; that this work is,
well.  as done as i think it needs to be; and the other constituent of the
'identity' related stuff (as required for RWW related works) now needs a
bit of rejuvenation seemingly...?


>
> I see the OIDC-WebID-Spec[1] but it doesn't seem to have made it into the
> WebID group[2] info, et.al.
>
>
> There are a number of things to look at. But I'd rather have people in the
> security space confined of this,
> than various hackers more or less aware of security issues.
>

k. important point.

When you're talking about security experts; is this requirement important
for updating the WebID docs to include the OIDC methods?

my little map in my head; left me thinking that when it comes to the
underlying ID bit - that's a WebID.   After the WebID it gets more
complicated; and that some of those WebIDs probably should describe a
machine (rather than its user, which is a different WebID)


>
> I note also; the ability to produce (and link) verifiable claims or
> 'credentials' I felt, some-time ago now, was quite an important extension
> to WebID theorem; yet the WebID Spec still makes no reference of JSON-LD
> which i still think is not ideal.
>
>
> That's something one could remedy quite easily....  Will see as I give in
> my first year report back. But the problem
> WebID is having is not because the spec does not mention json-ld.
>

Understand.   If i'm successful in getting the ISOC method up and running
(noting also, there's a related field of endeavour in IEEE[3] - i'm hoping
for a good community) ; then the theory is we'll be able to deal with 'the
social implications' a bit more broadly, and this in-turn should yield
better means to get stuck into any tech. requirements needed thereafter, as
well as better illustrating the need for RWW like deployment methods (and
in-turn, forming a comprehensive global / regional framework via Local ISOC
chapters to help educate local stakeholders, such as GOV, how, why, methods
and benefits of doing so).

It's been a fair bit of effort, and its not even started yet.  Yet i think
the WebID stuff is important, and it seems to the docs are all a bit out of
date.


>
>
> Tim.H.
>
> [1] https://github.com/solid/webid-oidc-spec
> [2] https://www.w3.org/community/WebID/
>
>
> Tim.H.
[3] https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/iccom/IC17-002-01_Di.pdf