- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:25:04 -0400
- To: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- CC: 'Henry Story' <henry.story@bblfish.net>, 'WebID XG' <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
On 4/12/11 2:14 PM, peter williams wrote: > The mime type is the existing IETF mime type for cert files, not that there > is any real need for it in a HTTP request presenting the blob to a custom > endpoint. If one is formal, then yes, the input request body type is the > MIME type application/x-x509-ca-cert (or user-cert). Have to be formal for sake of longevity, comprehension, adoption, and defensibility. > Look at any modern, well issued cert for an EE, and note that it points to > its parent cert using an URI, of form https://foo.com/foo.crt. That .crt > file is of resource type application/x-x509-ca-cert (If I remember right, > from years ago). In windows, if a client present a EE cert with that URI, > the server will go collect the foo.crt file so as to form a linked chain up > to a local root (very trivial linked data space discovery, no!) If foo.crt > has a further back pointer, that resource file can be collected too.... etc. > > > If you want multiple certs in a file, don't use PEM. (it's a mess.) Use the > PKCS7 mime type, properly design for ordering and relating cert in a linked > graph. > But, I don't recommend we go there. We want foaf to take charge of > linking certs/pubkeys together. Otherwise, this project becomes a minor > webservice wrapper, around existing PKIX standards for chain > discovery/validation. > > So, let's NOT reinvent what IETF already did - remote services for chain > checking, etc. Let's not even re-invent OCSP (a service for single cert > status data recovery). > > If one wants to mandate that only binary DER of the cert is sent to the > webservice instead of the (PEM variable) ascii armoring, I don't mind... I > was trying to be webby, by posting around that which exists. SSL delivers > the binary, though what various platforms to do that in ascii armoring when > delivered through CGI APIs is a different matter! > > All I want to do is remote the sparql queries, to someone does the > sparql/querying work for me. Which the service we'll produce will do. > Ive done that already for our client cert with > one URI in a SAN field, courtesy of uriburner. And URIBurner will just expose a service URL for those that prefer a more canned service over their own SPARQL etc.. > Now with the change of > spec/workflow concerning multiple URIs (work I found excellent, since its > focused on hard semantics), I realize my (remoted) query doesn't fit the > bill, under the revised validation rules. This compels me to even MORE > strongly call for offloading the (yet more complex) query(s). I want even > less to have this done in my enforcement logic. I want it in its own > strongly typed, well evaluated black box, executed by a trusted process. I'm not bothered either way, so no comment :-) Kingsley > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Henry Story > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:22 AM > To: WebID XG > Subject: Binary WebID Profiles > >> On 4/12/11 1:00 PM, peter williams wrote: >>> Yes, it's time for a restful web service (supported by https client >>> authn and SSL session management) that takes a base64 encode cert as >>> input, and returns YES/NO >> Yes. > How do you make multiple PEM's in that file possible (so someone can have > multiple files) What is the mime type one should use? > How does one link to another file? (after all it's the hyperdata we are > after) > > Those are not questions meant to put a stop to this exploration. Just it > would be good to come up with some ideas there. > > Perhaps you can write a small proposal on how to do this. > >>> The input parser should assume the worst: strange CRLF or LR or CR, > random header text, variable number of dashes, missing final EOL, UTF header > bytes, web friendly char sets or ascii - so as to deal with the realty of > "PEM encoding" >> Yes. >> >>> Another variant would take a cert sha1 fingerprint, rather than the cert. >> Yes. > Again what format? > >> Scheduled :-) > > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 18:25:32 UTC