- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 22:04:41 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>, Eric Jahn <eric@alexandriaconsulting.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE35Vmwk4fKjgGzEF1A26e2bsHsAGKuQFedcfxYgKevtizwYjQ@mail.gmail.com>
WebID-TLS works with TLS client certificates. Are there any protocols that work with TLS other than HTTP? If not then I would say the only legal URI scheme is https. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/tip/spec/tls-respec.html#the-webid-authentication-protocol On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 9:10 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:15 PM Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> I guess WebID can be any... Something used in WebID-TLS may need to be >> http(s). >> > > We actually nailed the initial definition of WebID at TPAC, based on a > formulation you came up with on IRC. > > This later went to the group and there was some to and fro regarding > redirects -- long story short, timbl didnt like redirects because they're a > pain -- others felt 303 was a worthwhile deployment pattern, but this > always muddies the waters > > It was a branding exercise, to create a practical definition that folks > might use. Whether or not that exercise was a success is debatable, but > better to get behind something and build, than argue about fine print. > > That was about 8 years ago, and since then things have stalled. Though > there was some movement in the last year, IMHO we'd benefit from a chair to > drive things forward, but unsure if anyone has time for that > > There's currently some momentum towards completing the draft spec, and > modernizing it a bit. For example to add JSON-LD and a context, is > generally regarded as a good thing. That's somewhat political though. > > I would favour at some point a clean modern webid 2.0 spec, which was > simple, minimalist, practical. But at the same time, is there a need for > it? Having yet another w3c spec that fewer than 100 people use is a bit > cringe. So we're a bit stuck in general. > > Is there a pressing need to have IRI's and webid. On some reflection, I > think that unicode characters could increase the attack surface. Is there > some limitation in ascii chars? It also plays nicely with subdomains, > which we decided to use for webid's in Solid etc. > > >> >> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022, 19:11 Eric Jahn, <eric@alexandriaconsulting.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Why does it have to be an HTTP IRI? Why not, just an IRI (any protocol)? >>> >>> Eric Jahn >>> CTO/Data Architect >>> Alexandria Consulting LLC >>> St. Petersburg, Florida >>> 727.537.9474 >>> alexandriaconsulting.com >>> WebID <https://alexandriaconsulting.com/files/eric_jahn.rdf#me> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/27/22 10:52 AM, Pat McBennett wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I just wanted to first ask if anyone here knew of any existing >>>> discussions at all (either here in this mailing list (as I can't find >>>> anything directly relevant when I search this list for 'IRI'), or anywhere >>>> else public) on updating the current statement in the draft spec [1] (i.e., >>>> ""A WebID is an HTTP URI") to use the term IRI instead of URI? >>>> >>>> (Note: I'm very deliberately not even mentioning the term HTTP in that >>>> definition - as that is a completely separate discussion point (i.e., >>>> getting into DIDs and IPFS, etc.)) >>>> >>>> I don't pretend to know the history behind efforts to definitively >>>> define what an IRI is - but I understand that IETF 3987 [2] never actually >>>> became an official standard (or did it?). >>>> >>>> I understand that the whole area of clearly defining what we mean by >>>> URL, URI, or IRI is probably still a mess. This was brilliantly articulated >>>> back in 2016 in this blog entry [3] by the maintainer of cURL (Daniel >>>> Stenberg): "Not even curl follows any published spec very closely these >>>> days...There’s no unified URL standard and there’s no work in progress >>>> towards that. I don’t count WHATWG’s spec as a real effort either". >>>> >>>> The reason I ask this question at all is because the RDF 1.1 Concepts >>>> and Abstract Syntax makes it explicitly clear that all identifiers in RDF >>>> are IRIs (as defined by IETF 3987, so whether that is an official standard >>>> or not), and it's clear from section "3.2 IRIs" that the reason for RDF >>>> explicitly stating the use of IETF 3987 IRIs over URIs is: >>>> "IRIs are a generalization of URIs [RFC3986] that permits a wider >>>> range of Unicode characters." >>>> >>>> Therefore I interpret that as saying that RDF mandates IRIs so as to be >>>> as inclusive as possible of character sets to allow people from all around >>>> the world to use their native languages to mint identifiers. (Seems like >>>> quite a laudable intent to me!) >>>> >>>> So my question, simply re-stated, is: has anyone discussed the idea of >>>> mandating WebIDs be IRIs too, for the same reason - i.e., to explicitly be >>>> as inclusive as possible of global character sets? >>>> >>>> (Seems to me like WebID has *even more* reason to be explicitly >>>> inclusive of character sets for identifiers than RDF even, since WebIDs are >>>> expressly intended to identify people (as well as organizations, and IoT >>>> devices, and 'agents', etc.)) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Pat. >>>> >>>> 1 - >>>> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/#:~:text=a%20given%20Server.-,WebID,A%20WebID%20is%20a%20URI%20with%20an%20HTTP%20or%20HTTPS%20scheme,-which%20denotes%20an >>>> 2 - https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt >>>> 3 - https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/11/my-url-isnt-your-url/ >>>> >>>> *Pat McBennett*, Technical Architect >>>> >>>> Contact | patm@inrupt.com >>>> >>>> Connect | WebID <http://pmcb55.inrupt.net/profile/card#me>, GitHub >>>> <https://github.com/pmcb55> >>>> >>>> Explore | www.inrupt.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by >>>> the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged, >>>> confidential and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient of this e-mail (or the person responsible for delivering this >>>> document to the intended recipient), please do not disseminate, distribute, >>>> print or copy this e-mail, or any attachment thereto. If you have received >>>> this e-mail in error, please respond to the individual sending the message, >>>> and permanently delete the email. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Pat, >>>> >>>> Long story short, your point is valid. >>>> >>>> Challenge: >>>> >>>> Evolving the WebID spec is fundamentally difficult, IMHO. >>>> >>>> A WebID should be an HTTP IRI that denotes an Agent. >>>> >>>> How that becomes part of the spec is a completely different matter :( >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Kingsley Idehen >>>> Founder & CEO >>>> OpenLink Software >>>> Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com >>>> Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com >>>> Weblogs (Blogs): >>>> Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog >>>> Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog >>>> Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers >>>> >>>> Personal Weblogs (Blogs): >>>> Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen >>>> Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/ >>>> http://kidehen.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> Profile Pages: >>>> Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/ >>>> Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen >>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen >>>> Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about >>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >>>> >>>> Web Identities (WebID): >>>> Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i >>>> : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this >>>> >>>>
Received on Monday, 4 July 2022 20:05:09 UTC