W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

Re: self-signed

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:53:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4DADE82B.5070007@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 4/19/11 3:16 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> > That's really DoD. IMHO. re., any version of WebID that exits this this
> > IG. It has zero effect on me (personally) or my corporate entity
> > (OpenLink). The only loser will be the WebID protocol itself :-(
> Why?
> Are you seriously saying that you will _only_ publish your WebID FOAF 
> document through some protocol which isn't http-based?

Please don't respond subjectively to my comments. Just not right. When 
did I say or infer that?
> Bear in mind that WebFinger is an indirection mechanism. What happens 
> if you resolve that indirection at cert-generation time to begin with, 
> and shift that burden to the servers (to allow greater dynamism, i.e., 
> that the thing could move around at will) later on?

I know what Webfinger is, its already working fine with our WebID 
implementation. Ditto Fingerpoint. That's why I already have Certs. with 
URI based WebIDs. An URI != HTTP.

> What is the actual scenario which makes http/s-only WebID as a 
> starting point dead in the water for you & OpenLink?

Even when I said, with clarity, non of this has any bearing on me 
personally, or my corporate entity OpenLink Software, you gut response 
is the question above?

WebID is Dead on Delivery (DoD) if its a vector for a specific scheme 
instead of a vector for InterWeb scale identity that leverages the 
collective prowess of:

1. URIs
2. Structured Profiles
3. Trust Logic.

The WebID that you and Henry seem to speak of is one that might someday 
deliver on 1-3 above across the following dimensions:

1. Rhetoric
2. Specs
3. Test suites
4. Implementations.

> What scenario do you forsee causing it to be so utterly difficult to 
> add other schemes well ahead of WebID actually gaining traction?

I never said or inferred that. Quite the contrary i.e., I am asking: 
what's so difficult about keeping WebID URI scheme agnostic from the get 

> M.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
> stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this. 



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, 19 April 2011 19:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:44 UTC