Re: Status-Check

Why would WebID need the OpenID stuff?

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>