Re: WebID-TLS + Credentials

On 20 June 2015 at 17:01, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 06/20/2015 10:37 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> > Working on local issues, HbbTV is compatible with WebID-TLS from a
> > device layer (TV's).
> >
> > It's potentially important that WebID-TLS becomes interoperable for
> > billing purposes with other systems that may be best addressed using
> >  Credentials.
> >
> > What is the current viewpoint on how these two standards may become
> > interoperable.
>
> I don't think there's much that needs to be done to make them
> compatible. WebID-TLS, as the name implies, operates at the TLS layer.
> You could put your DID (decentralized identifier) into the
> subjectAltName area of a certificate and it would work just like
> WebID-TLS works today except you'd be dereferencing the DID through some
> future (to be created) "WebDHT" protocol instead of HTTPS.
>
> Once dereferenced, you'd have a "DID document", in JSON-LD
> format, just like you'd get by dereferencing an HTTPS WebID URL today.
> This document would have a public key in it (where its paired private
> key was used in the TLS protocol) and you'd check that against what's in
> the certificate just like you do today with WebID-TLS.
>
> Remember, the identity work in the Credentials CG is just based off of
> WebID. The WebID spec currently says a WebID is an HTTP or HTTPS URI --
> we're just proposing a decentralized protocol that better supports
> identity portability for the WebIDs in the credentials work. So, in
> short, the scheme is very compatible. The only difference is that we're
> looking to use a decentralized, portable identifier (DID) instead of an
> HTTPS one.
>
> Hopefully only a simple software update would be necessary to add
> support for "WebDHT" look ups. The rest of the protocol would remain the
> same.
>

WebID is the most widely deployed identity system on the web, mainly
because facebook adopted it.  It leverages HTTP hash URIs over turtle as
identity.

I've yet to see any of the credentials work manage do this.

Last time I discussed interoperability with Digital Bazaar (Manu), we found
a bug, and the view expressed was that HTTP was broken.  In general, I dont
agree with the argument that HTTP is broken.  Time will tell.

The reason HTTP URIs were selected, was simply a branding choice, based on
the fact that HTTP is widely deployed.  Using other types of URI could
certainly be done, and I dont think would cause an issue.  I know already
of email based identity being used with X.509, so the more protocols the
better, imho.  Would love to see a WebDHT system.

>
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>
>