Re: Proof of Concept: Identity Credentials Login

I was going to shut-up, but since you asked...      (the crowd moans...)

> Sounds like what your trying to achieve, actually relates to privacy &
simple user experience / ease of use.

To be honest, I arrived not with a spec or even a goal in mind, but rather
just some observations about our online payments, that 1) when I pay online
there's always somebody between me and the person I'm trying to pay, 2) the
transaction often does not happen immediately, there is often some waiting
period and 3) Quite often one or both of the participants must pay a
transaction fee.
And then I wasn't seeing any of those four issues being addressed and so I
guess I instinctively just started brainstorming on solutions.
while in the physical world I pay whoever I want and there's no waiting, no
fees.
Then I noticed that these characteristics all disappear when I pay cash.
It's 1) DIRECT, 2) IMMEDIATE & 3) FREE.
incidentally, there is at least one other observation, 4) I get my change
in cash. [ we haven't even gotten close to that part yet. ]
Actually more like a simple emulation of physical cash (for lack of a
written spec). Privacy, was not really a driving force for me in any of
this, however, a realistic emulation of money would include the advantage
of privacy, so sure, let's expect privacy... besides, nobody watches
anything we do on the Internet, right??  ;-)   Making it as simple as cash,
an admirable goal.

>The web-payments standards provides a language or syntax around how
different "elements" involved throughout the "chain" can >interact in a
standardised fashion.   Many of the ingredients to what your talking about,
are part or in-scope for web-payments (IMO); other areas are not.

Right, and I really didn't know what Web payments meant exactly think there
are going to be common to all transactions and maybe others that are unique
to some situation. I don't intuitively expect a clean separation of
concerns to exist.

>If your solely hosting a service at home: what happens if your at a cafe,
and your kid has turned off the power accidentally, or the repo man decides
they'll take it - till you pay your bills.  I'm just making up
user-stories, but of course, these situations and business cases can be
extremely complicated.

Yes, short answer: don't know, don't care, it's your problem. That's like
going to the supermarket but forgetting your wallet at home, in that, your
inability to pay for your groceries was in no way caused by any inherent
flaw in our currency! Bottom line, if you want to pay or get paid - your
digital wallet must be powered-up, online and ready for transactions!
There's nothing any of us can do to keep your kid away from the machine -
your problem. I'd prefer the hosted leather solution you carry in your back
pocket, kinda like a, oh yeah, wallet.

>I think ipv6 subnet pools are being issued to existing ipv4 subnet owners.
 I queried Vint Cerf about using ipv6 addresses in a similar way, his exact
words were "IPv6 is a topological identifier and should NOT be used as a
logical one."...  (And I was really thankful for his response...)

So wherever you see an IPv4 node today, someday in the future that same
location will have <some_giant_number> - minus one, of unique endpoints now
available.

>I'll follow-up more tomorrow, but continue to encourage you to get
involved, and influence how these standards work in the >interests of the
people.

I will mostly just watch and learn but I'll speak up if I do see anything
you guys have missed.

>The suggestion that fqdn's should be owned by all email address holders -
or as similarly described - I think, has great purpose >and is well-worth
pushing forward. Not in scope for webpayments specific however....

No, that seems like it would be entirely at the discretion of the guy who
paid for that server! :)
But seriously, what then, have you gained at that point by having chosen to
use a FQDN? Why did you choose to use an FQDN in the first place? For me,
the FQDN itself establishes the identity of the wallet hosted there. Nobody
needs to know whose wallet but only that it has uniqueness like a real
physical wallet it can only exist in one place at a time - that digital
wallet is has a "physicality" that most software objects never have. To me,
this"physicality" is an exciting and new concept we're inventing. Note that
it can also be extended if other software objects then somehow attach
themselves they too have gained "physicality". The concept is so new, we
don't even know yet if it has real significance, my gut is that it
definitely will have some new characteristics we can exploit.

specifies one specific machine that will be responding to the IP number
pointed to by the FQDN.
 if you're wanting to use an FQDN for the same reasons I was, then by
allowing a bunch of people to send and receive emails from your digital
wallet you've already compromised your wallet's security by letting all
those people physically access it.
NOTE: Humans should not be physically allowed to login to or otherwise use
digital wallet machines, at least not when that wallet is connected and
available. I wouldn't trust *anyone* to be logged in to my digital wallet
for ANY reason. hey, that's your real money living there, you don't want to
allow anyone to mess with it so, protect it as well as your physical wallet.

>More broadly; some work will fall into scope with web-payments, some will
not.  Some with w3c, some not.  Don't throw the baby >out with the bath
water... ;)

OK, I think by my focusing on my own specific requirements, I had already
inadvertently stopped being helpful to the Web Payments group and was now a
lone wolf.

>Perhaps, re; use-cases or user stories around "digital cash".  A swot
analysis...  Might help us (or me at least) figure out, or validate >the
requirement and a possible approach...

Yes, I was thinking we might be about ready for that. I'm hoping that the
two use cases I have in mind will truly be the ONLY two use cases for these
little guys to take care of: Send & Receive.

OK, sure as long as the rest of the group is not annoyed by being pretty
far out of scope with my discussions.

Just 3 steps, Step 1: Sender notify's Receiver of the send request. and
forwards her own public key.
In a Send request, first a human defines the *SendTo: address* (FQDN) and
the *amount* and hits Send.

Step 2: Receiver confirms or rejects based on the single acceptable
currency type it can handle, in this case USD.
Receiver then forwards all info to the Clearing House / Central Bank.
adding to it her own FQDN
>What characteristic are you trying to protect by eliminating identity (of
the payee? I assume??)

Ha, I love this question because it makes me seem so proactively
benevolent, yet in reality, I had no such lofty concerns! :) Truth is, I
simply have not yet found a single reason why my digital wallet needs to
confirm anybody's identity.Tell me one scenario in which my wallet needs to
know who anyone is. This is what I can infer: The Central Bank has no
meaningful Identity, so only Sender and Receiver are left. The Sender knows
nothing about the identity of the Receiver other than their FQDN.

Step 3: The Central Bank receives the confirmed payment request form and
first confirm sender's ownership when the signatures match. Next, the
current(old) owner'sownership is invalidated by removing it from the suffix
and then multicasting a UDP Invalidation message to a subset of listening
wallets, and in turn those wallets all delete this message if they have it.
This might be a shard in a clusterd mongodb array, or any of many other
scenarios. Now the Central Bank, takes the Receiver's public key and uses
it to create and attach the new suffix and then send it to be physically
attached to that Receiver (the new current owberthe currency to the
Receiver. And finally, the Central Bank sends out a  UDP Receipt message to
some subset of listeners this time telling the world the serial and suffix
of the next currency under new ownership. Both Sender and Receiver are sent
their copies of the receipt message which acts as the new ownership doc.

>POC examples on GitHub (or similar) really very important for this area of
work.  The more people get into community works, the >better...

Yes, this has been tricky because there are 1001
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1001_Arabian_Nights> ways to do the
implementation, and still do it well enough. I think all you really need is
a service that says it can do the send & receive jobs of a wallet... do we
just say ok and trust it? Or what makes us trust it? Answer: only people
can make these decisions. People decide, and yes I think maybe we can just
trust it. If it can't really do the two jobs a wallet knows how to do, then
no money will be going anywhere because apparently that wallet is broken or
something.

OK, the reason a stab at a POC
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept> hasn't been taken is
because I've changed my mind on the platform a few times already. One
example that could work just fine is that the wallet is implemented as a
2002-style SOA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented_architecture>
architecture using WSDL <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wsdl> and SOAP
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP> XML. Sounds way too much of PITA if we
just need to host two services? Send & Receive. I only mentioned this one
to show, yes that would work fine, but it sure sounds like a lot of work to
me. SOAP & WSDL? yuck.

What's another way? How about a simple Ruby on Rails
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails> App? With two services built
out? Yup, this can also work.

As you can already see there are a ton of ways to do this... BUT, what
would you suggest as the easiest way? What do you need in place?

OK my initial reaction here was to use Meteor
<http://docs.meteor.com/#whatismeteor> on Node.js <http://nodejs.org/>
because I was already thinking in terms of independent little entities that
can move from one host to another host, that sounds just like money
changing hands doesn't it? Node provides a way to deploy the same single
unit of code to every server and the server will know which parts it should
send to the client if/when necessary. This too would work just fine.

But my preferred solution may surprise you, especially if you haven't even
heard of it (yet). I'm currently proposing that every wallet endpoint
should be a Docker <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)> app.
Then, there are plenty of different solutions for hosting that app, in fact
in it's current Docker container, it can already run on any Linux machine,
but I am choosing to run the smallest Linux distribution around, CoreOS
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreOS> and it just happens to come with a
Docker installation ready to host any Docker App like the one we just
created!


>Imho, nothing on the web is anonymous.  Therefore, you actually mean
identity displacement.  Systems are already in place to >ensure something
is anonymous, save a court-order, it seems this is not enough for some of
your use cases??  Or is it a problem >relating directly to the "cost" of a
transaction?

I'm not actually sure who brought the word anonymous to the table, because
it's not a concern of mine. I was waiting to explain an earlier situation?
OK, I don't know who she is`

>Like a pebble in water, it's impossible for an action not to leave traces
or ripples...  Therefore, to me, the answer is about >accountability more
than trying to find a better, darker, more secret place.  I don't
particularly like the golden rule - he who has the >gold rules...  I like
the concept of an egalitarian meritocracy....  Which absolutely means,
success depends upon accessibility to t>he rule of law; over and above,
"the golden rule"...

OK, since I wasn't the requester of the anonymity, I can only speculate
what she was looking for so for now I will skip this. In my mind, to "need
anonymity" one must already have established their Identity, yes? (well I
told you not to!)  ;^)

>Give the people identity - support, without improper barriers, what is
best described in the texts of 'human rights' conventions - >democracy will
thrive.

But, that's just my opinion...
Well the digital wallets are stupid and know nothing about the person that
owns them and so is able to divulge a thig

And 50 years is too long.  In fact, given the growth and capabilities of
entities around the world, I'm surprised so many people are giving their
time away freely to define something today, over the next few years, that
should have really existed for some time already...

Oh, I can answer:  It is actually BECAUSE it should have already existed
for some time, but hasn't.! Unacceptable situation!  :)

Says something about priorities I guess...


Dave Lampton
* @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*

* DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton> +DaveLampton
<https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/




On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You've hit on numerous topics I've had quite some interest in overtime...
>
> Sounds like what your trying to achieve, actually relates to privacy &
> simple user experience / ease of use.
>
> The web-payments standards provides a language or syntax around how
> different "elements" involved throughout the "chain" can interact in a
> standardised fashion.   Many of the ingredients to what your talking about,
> are part or in-scope for web-payments (IMO); other areas are not.
>
> If your solely hosting a service at home: what happens if your at a cafe,
> and your kid has turned off the power accidentally, or the repo man decides
> they'll take it - till you pay your bills.  I'm just making up
> user-stories, but of course, these situations and business cases can be
> extremely complicated.
>
> I think ipv6 subnet pools are being issued to existing ipv4 subnet owners.
>  I queried Vint Cerf about using ipv6 addresses in a similar way, his exact
> words were "IPv6 is a topological identifier and should NOT be used as a
> logical one."...  (And I was really thankful for his response...)
>
> I'll follow-up more tomorrow, but continue to encourage you to get
> involved, and influence how these standards work in the interests of the
> people.
>
> The suggestion that fqdn's should be owned by all email address holders -
> or as similarly described - I think, has great purpose and is well-worth
> pushing forward. Not in scope for webpayments specific however....
>
> More broadly; some work will fall into scope with web-payments, some will
> not.  Some with w3c, some not.  Don't throw the baby out with the bath
> water... ;)
>
> Perhaps, re; use-cases or user stories around "digital cash".  A swot
> analysis...  Might help us (or me at least) figure out, or validate the
> requirement and a possible approach...
>
> What characteristic are you trying to protect by eliminating identity (of
> the payee? I assume??)
>
> POC examples on GitHub (or similar) really very important for this area of
> work.  The more people get into community works, the better...
>
> Imho, nothing on the web is anonymous.  Therefore, you actually mean
> identity displacement.  Systems are already in place to ensure something is
> anonymous, save a court-order, it seems this is not enough for some of your
> use cases??  Or is it a problem relating directly to the "cost" of a
> transaction?
>
> Like a pebble in water, it's impossible for an action not to leave traces
> or ripples...  Therefore, to me, the answer is about accountability more
> than trying to find a better, darker, more secret place.  I don't
> particularly like the golden rule - he who has the gold rules...  I like
> the concept of an egalitarian meritocracy....  Which absolutely means,
> success depends upon accessibility to the rule of law; over and above, "the
> golden rule"...
>
> Give the people identity - support, without improper barriers, what is
> best described in the texts of 'human rights' conventions - democracy will
> thrive.
>
> But, that's just my opinion...
>
> And 50 years is too long.  In fact, given the growth and capabilities of
> entities around the world, I'm surprised so many people are giving their
> time away freely to define something today, over the next few years, that
> should have really existed for some time already...
>
> Says something about priorities I guess...
>
> Nite.
>
> Timh.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 13 Jun 2014, at 7:00 pm, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi Tim,
> yes, I may need to depart from this group soon as I agree my goals extend
> beyond just Web, and while I'm not sure if it will end up as a protocol, it
> might just be a "service specification" for every "wallet" endpoint - would
> likely belong with IETF.
> I'm calling it 'cash' only because two entities will be able to conduct a
> transaction without a middle-man, nobody ever taking a piece of the action.
> these transactions occur in real time and are as final as handing someone a
> paper bill
> I won't be printing any paper receipts, but details are always available -
> just point your browser at your wallet's FQDN.
> I'll want to specify the software stack at the endpoints, which may be
> spec'ed all the way to bare metal
> rather than having many use cases that resemble "making an operating
> system with better GUI",
> I'll have a small handful of use cases that more resemble the simplicity
> of flushing a toilet. :)
> well, identity displacement seems adequate, but I doubt my system will
> even include any concept of Identity
> I'm not really concerned with anonymity at the time of the transaction,
> but instead simply concerned
> with ensuring that "money has no memory"
> "I must always be able to track my spending, but my spending should never
> be able to track me"
> Adrian was right that the scope and goals of my project are broader than
> just Web
> I'll probably need to revisit the creation process for a new protocol
> under the IETF (check back with me in 50 years! ;-)
> There is a crypto-currency called ZeroCash (which is based on BitCoin) and
> is really quite close to reaching all of my intended requirements, however,
> my intent to be capable of transacting with a nation's real currency as
> issued by their central bank.
> I fully understand the issues involved in managing your own FQDN but we
> don't have the same goals. I won't be developing a lightweight payment
> system, but instead, more like your own fully-capable business checking
> account (but without the bank, and hosted at home, perhaps) by an
> individual who actually *needs* all of that extra functionality and is
> capable of managing his registrar and his DNS. In any case, IPv6 is around
> the corner and every man woman and child on the planet will have
> <some_huge_number> of IP addresses at their disposal. I imagine that
> managing one's registrar and configuring one's DNS for each wallet endpoint
> will be about as complex as buying yourself a wallet. also, trivial &
> common enough that having them managed and/or virtually hosted for you will
> be so common that the expenses will likely be tiny fees, or you can set one
> up on your smart phone. etc. not only will more & more "average citizens"
> be able to do these things, but there will also be plenty of cheap
> hosted/managed solutions available.
>
> Dave Lampton
>  @dave_lampton
> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>
>
> Dave Lampton
> * @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*
>
> * DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton>  +DaveLampton
> <https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I can, and will write a volume or two about this area (identity, privacy,
>> anonymity, etc.): however, figure it’s not something for the list, and in
>> any case; it’ll need some editing…
>>
>> When the terms ‘digital cash’ and ‘anonymity’ is concerned; are you
>> talking about entirely anonymous? or identity displacement?
>>
>> Perhaps as an exercise; consider the instances where your identity as a
>> purchaser, or payee becomes ‘anonymous’ (meaning, cannot be proved); vs.
>> those where identity remains intact throughout the lifecycle of what
>> #upaid4  or #uvoted4
>>
>> Could be retaining a readable receipt (i.e. not thermal receipt printing)
>> from a retailer.  Could be something that forms the world of online
>> content, could be an email with a proposal put into a powerpoint or
>> business plan format. Many use-cases….
>>
>> Another good activity; is looking at the manifest forms of social-policy
>> decisions made; that could benefit if you a. had data relating to your
>> economic footprint, and b. were entitled to actively share elements of that
>> data, in a structured format; as to support research.
>>
>> Whilst I absolutely believe enormously beneficial to encouraging users
>> with an Email Address - to migrate towards owning and operating their own
>> domain - it’s not specifically within the ‘domain’ of web-payments.
>>  Perhaps it’s something that could be formally supported by the group;
>> should an appropriate group become recognisable, in how to push that form
>> of promotional activity (Not for profit styled) to web-users.  I also think
>> part of that function, requires improvements to traditional
>> domain-management tools.
>>
>> A bit like making an operating system with better GUI.
>>
>> On 12 Jun 2014, at 11:30 am, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, I am still relatively new to this group and trying to catch up
>> with the work that has been done thus far on Web Payments, and I'll be the
>> first to acknowledge that I may have still missed some important details
>> (but I don't believe so). Likewise, I don't want to conflate the
>> conversation too much with my own ideas for implementing "digital cash"
>> transactions, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt, at least
>> for now. :-)
>>
>>
>> To me, the proposed system already just feels overly complex for the
>> tasks at hand - lots of moving parts, several steps involved. I'm all for
>> using existing open standards, but it seems like we may be limiting
>> ourselves (or rather, complicating the problem, I think) instead of simply
>> inventing only what's really needed.
>>
>>
>> TL;DR - I'm with Melvin Carvalho and his comments made yesterday re: his
>> fundamental dissatisfaction with 3rd party identity solutions (even just
>> the concept of a 3rd party doing this for me is troublesome). I'm largely
>> unsatisfied with the various identity systems already competing - they are
>> not particularly fun or easy to work with, and the one you need today is
>> usually that one you've never needed to look at before today.
>>
>>
>> Additionally, I still feel uneasy about using email addresses at all in
>> any sort of next-gen payment system, but especially if the real goal is to
>> ultimately just attach to browsers/devices anyway. This "shim" already
>> sounds like something we would prefer to throw away, so then, let's just
>> leap-frog it altogether.
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, I agree with a few others that URI's are wholly inadequate
>> in the role of endpoints because more than one can be live on the same host
>> and therefore they invite people to potentially host multiple people's
>> money (and the transactions thereof) on a single host or device, which just
>> seems like the quick road to widespread corruption. Using the browsers as
>> secure endpoints seems like an even worse idea, regardless of who suggested
>> it all the way back in 1990. ;-)  Browsers are too transient or inconstant
>> for my taste, and again, multiple instances can be running simultaneously
>> on a host. If used properly they could work fine, I suppose, but they are
>> also a piece of software which means they are also game-able, open for
>> abuse, emulation, fraud.
>>
>>
>> And while I'm complaining about everything, I'll even point out that our
>> de facto API these days, a RESTful interface, is also overkill for the very
>> few types of messages we actually need to pass around. I find that the
>> problems can be solved with a small set of JSON-LD (or BSON-LD?) messages
>> (representing individual sets of currency units and the transactions
>> intended to be applied to them) which can be passed around over secure Web
>> sockets (wss:// protocol over port 443).
>>
>>
>> So... in my mind, it seems our digital "wallets" or "accounts", or
>> whatever we call the things that send and receive transactions and are the
>> "physical" homes for our digital money, should each only be assigned to one
>> and only one *fully qualified domain name* such as "usd1.davelampton.com"
>> for example. An FQDN is simply an assigned hostname controlled by the
>> domain owner, who can point it at any host or device on his or her domain
>> subnet, by using DNSSEC <http://www.dnssec.net/>, specifically (i.e.we
>> would probably need to insist on the adoption of Secure DNS, since standard
>> DNS has known security flaws). A new type of resource record would need
>> to be used, perhaps a "CTX" record for "currency transaction exchanger"??
>>  Anyone controlling a FQDN controls the (necessarily homogeneous)
>> currency units (money) held in the one CTX residing there, period. No
>> password needs to be known or saved by the stupid humans. (No passwords
>> using "123456"!) Thus far, I'm yet to be really convinced any separate IdP
>> is even required once endpoints are secured by a unique hostname (FQDN)...
>> more discussion on that later(*).
>>
>>
>> Someone asked:
>> > How will the request to this identity provider location/URL be
>> authenticated?
>> So my answer to this is simply to use ZoneSigner
>> <https://www.dnssec-tools.org/wiki/index.php/Zonesigner>, a DNSSEC tool
>> used to secure the reverse delegations.
>>
>>
>> When an end user creates an account with the clearing house (or central
>> bank, or whoever is clearing transactions on that currency), a new unique
>> keypair is generated and assigned - private keys saved and public keys
>> shared only by those two parties. One unique keypair per CTX account - and
>> only one CTX account per FQDN.
>>
>>
>> In general, the Peer-Assisted Key Derivation Function (PAKDF) as
>> suggested by Evan Schwartz is a great solution for turning a weak password
>> (the kind humans can remember) into a strong signed key. If a unique
>> keypair is generated by the clearing house / central bank for that currency
>> and then assigned to the corresponding account/wallet nobody else will ever
>> know or manage any server or account/wallet passwords other than for
>> server/endpoint administration, perhaps. We can thus begin and end with
>> strong keys and not bother with the human incapacity for remembering
>> important things. I don't think it's even necessary for anyone to know a
>> password other than possibly for the Web-based administration interface to
>> manage the hosted transaction services.
>>
>>
>> Now, in my own proposed (work-in-progress) solution, something akin to
>> your "Telehash" service would be hosted by the clearing house / central
>> bank of the corresponding currency itself and is responsible for auth/auth
>> of incoming requests for services, the immediate transaction approval or
>> disapproval, the immediate processing of each of those transactions, and
>> the updating of the public distributed database which keeps tabs on each
>> outstanding piece of currency (after already publicly invalidating the
>> previous FQDN's ownership hash for that unit of currency prior to
>> generating and publicly sharing the newly signed ownership hash. Anyone can
>> test any piece of currency in the marketplace at any time, but only the
>> current owner will get a matched signature, because their FQDN was used to
>> generate the current hash value stored with the currency's serial number in
>> the publicly distributed database.
>>
>>
>> (*) A bit more discussion: an FQDN is literally as close as we get to
>> something physical on the Internet because it IS physical and relatively
>> static. By attaching software objects to FQDN's we achieve a "physicality"
>> presently missing in the digital realm. This physicality implies true
>> uniqueness at all times - just like real cash. A digital entity (in this
>> case, some unit of digital cash) can move in the digital universe only when
>> a transaction is approved and executed, and may only exist in one place at
>> a time (namely, its current, pre-approved home). This is what is required
>> for money to only belong to one individual (account) at a time, only after
>> issued a new UUID and after previous incarnations have been publicly
>> invalidated already and marked for removal at some convenient time. Perhaps
>> Dave Longley's last comment alludes to this but I would emphasize that no
>> separate IdP is required - one's clearing house or central bank for the
>> currency being held in a particular wallet effectively becomes the IdP.
>> Each wallet can only hold currency issued or managed by the clearing house
>> / central bank that issued that money (accounts themselves acting here as
>> the user's identity service provider). I think this concept of physicality
>> can (and should) be expanded to lots of other "nouns" that we would like to
>> have live in only ONE place at a time in our digital universe (the whole
>> Net or perhaps just a local subnet). As long as each one is *uniquely*
>> attached to a FQDN (or another software object that is already attached to
>> a FQDN, potentially ad infinitum...) and each previous instance (in some
>> other physical location) has been publicly invalidated before the newly
>> created instance arrives in its present destination, then we can trust its
>> uniqueness.
>>
>>
>> OK, I'm probably rambling now... while I could go on and on, I've
>> probably already ruffled more feathers than perhaps I should in one day.
>>
>>
>> Cheers. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Lampton
>> * @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*
>>
>> * DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton>  +DaveLampton
>> <https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
>> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
>> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/10/2014 06:25 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> > TL;DR: There is now an open source demo of credential-based login
>>> > for the Web. We think it’s better than Persona, WebID+TLS, and
>>> > OpenID Connect. If we can build enough support for Identity
>>> > Credentials over the next year, we’d like to standardize it via
>>> > the W3C.
>>> Congratulations!
>>>
>>> I find it very impressing especially since you got running pushed to a
>>> public repo - kudos++
>>>
>>> First question coming to my mind:
>>>
>>> "The way that both Mozilla Persona and OpenID do it is fairly similar.
>>> OpenID assumes that your email address maps to your identity provider."
>>>
>>> In my case, and I believe nowadays quite many other people, I control
>>> domain which I use for email address. With simple DNS configuration I
>>> use different 'providers' for my email server and my web server (here
>>> myself).
>>> In this situation I find using webfinger[1] (also used by OpenID
>>> Connect), more attractive then hiding from myself via
>>> http://login-hub.com - even if His Holiness @Pontifex with His Holiness
>>> @DalaiLama would run it very carefully together ;)
>>>
>>> I still need to take some time and wrap my head around your design but
>>> maybe you could easily evaluate complexity of including webfinger based
>>> flow as an alternative option for those who may prefer such setup?
>>>
>>> Once again - GREAT WORK!!!
>>>
>>> [1] http://webfinger.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>