- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:35:47 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-webpayments@w3.org, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1EB5A755-30AB-47C2-92AD-70AC0E7A1CB8@bblfish.net>
On 22 Apr 2013, at 05:27, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 04/21/2013 10:53 PM, Dave Longley wrote: >> On 04/21/2013 05:26 PM, Henry Story wrote: >>>> In other words, your false claim about a "very complicated >>>> non-decentralized protocol" is still rooted in your continued >>>> disinterest in understanding what we implemented. >>>> >>> Can you find a mail where you publically explained how this >>> worked? >> >> Yes, I can find those and so can you. Search the foaf-protocols >> list, for instance. > > August 10th, 2010 - Dave Longley explains the JavaScript+Flash-based > WebID+TLS protocol: > http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-August/003249.html > > August 13th, 2010 - Henry Story responds to the thread: > http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-August/003287.html Good so I suppose with hindsight the idea of a Flash WebID+TLS protocol did not sound like such a good idea. As you see > > May 10th, 2011 - Dave Longley explains the JavaScript+Websockets-based > WebID+TLS protocol: > http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2011-May/004942.html > > There are at least 55 e-mails where Dave Longley took the time to > explain the protocol publicly. You were involved in many of those > conversations, but never did we get the impression that you were > actually looking at or fully grasped the implementations: > > https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.foaf-project.org+longley > > In the end, we gave up on WebID specification because, after a year of > us working on spec development and implementations, the community wasn't > receptive to our concerns about the usability issues behind client-side > certs. It was a deal-killer for us. I never really saw a clear explanation of where the key material was to be found, and how it was not going to end up centralised. > > Luckily, the Mozilla Persona team seems to be well on their way to > solving the usability problem. > We'd much rather work with a group that > understands that solving the login on the Web problem starts with > usability. It is our opinion that getting Linked Data and public key > cryptography into Persona is going to be easier than trying to fix WebID > at this point in time. BrowserId - now mozilla persona - is indeed at some level quite compatible with WebID. I studied that in more detail and wrote up a review here http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5406/what-are-the-main-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-webid-compared-to-browserid At the point of writing that it still had centralisation issues, that they could only overcome by changing the browser. Also doing all this in JavaScript a Turing Complete language, when you can do it all in an efficient TLS is of course really bad practice, and opens a huge can of worms, if not a bathtub of them. But > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch > http://blog.meritora.com/launch/ Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 07:36:17 UTC