- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:02:14 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_JHOxaA+RuOXhb2S1sXusJ=3qyOCBGr3MvWoixLaj4UMg@mail.gmail.com>
The current drive to migrate the whole Web to HTTPS suggests you may have a number of people that disagree with you. Personally I think some mention of security is necessary but if there is a consensus that it is not I'll happily drop it. On 19 May 2015 at 12:18, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 19 May 2015 at 11:46, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote: > >> All true, however the architecture should assume that we will secure >> basic things like message content and sensitive data and credentials and... >> > > IMHO, Not at the architectural level, no. Tools should be provided so > that security can be used when necessary. If the web had started with > HTTPS it may never have taken off. It's all too common especially lately > for security to be over engineered creating barriers to participation. If > email was secure by design, it may never have taken off too. > > >> >> I think the statement "Secure by design" says enough without saying too >> much don't you? >> > > I would personally leave it out, and have security considerations inside > each individual spec, as is common. > > > >> >> On 19 May 2015 at 11:33, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 19 May 2015 at 11:08, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Melvin, >>>> >>>> Are you referring to this line: >>>> * Secure by design >>>> >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I agree with what you're saying but I don't think it's necessary to >>>> strip this statement out completely. I think it's important that we state >>>> that the design is intended to promote security, however that ultimately >>>> translates into the implementation. >>>> >>>> Do you have a suggestion for an alternative wording? >>>> >>> >>> I dont. I envision web payments ecosystem to be self healing, >>> decentralized and fault tolerant. It's quite difficult to put that into a >>> vision statement, because highly connected, scale invariant systems, tend >>> to be self organizing. For example, when dealing with family members, you >>> may need low security, but when buying health insurance, higher security. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 May 2015 at 08:58, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 May 2015 at 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement for the work >>>>>> we are undertaking, specifically with regards to the architecture we will >>>>>> be developing, for payments on the Web. >>>>>> >>>>>> The document is intended to express the technical principles we >>>>>> consider important in the design of the architecture and I'd appreciate >>>>>> some input on it's content. >>>>>> >>>>>> The document is also intended to be short, less than a page, and as >>>>>> such not too detailed. It's purpose is to frame the design and allow all >>>>>> stakeholders to agree up front that we are aligned on our vision. >>>>>> >>>>>> The audience should be broad, and not necessarily payments or Web >>>>>> technology experts, but since this is related to the design of a technical >>>>>> architecture the content will be technical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please have a look at the first draft of this document and send me >>>>>> your feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally I would scratch the part on security. Not because I dont >>>>> value security, but because it's quite a subjective term. Satoshi said, "A >>>>> certain per centage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable". I prefer that >>>>> kind of wording. Also, security can come at the expense of growth and >>>>> scalability. The value proposition of the web is not as a secure system, >>>>> much like the post office, telephone or email, but rather, as a highly >>>>> connected self organizing system capable of unexpected reuse. Systems like >>>>> bitcoin and ripple are relatively secure but dont scale too well, systems >>>>> like the web are relatively insecure but scale well. What we have tended >>>>> to notice with large systems is that security increases with scale. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Adrian >>>>>> >>>>>> p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting this started. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 18:02:47 UTC