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

RE: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

From: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:56:08 -0700
Message-ID: <SNT143-ds12CF19AC911E51B3ED63EF92940@phx.gbl>
To: "'Henry Story'" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, <jeff@sayremedia.com>
CC: "'Kingsley Idehen'" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
We distinguish between web and webby here. Remember, webby means the
TAG-authorized architecture - a set of design principles. Using a windows
web service to mint or reissue a cert is "not webby" (though obviously web),
since a "true" webby solution would use the HTML5 keygen tag. That keygen
tag is crap at the issues of renewal/reissuance is ... besides the point (in
very pure webby circles). Its canon.

What I want to hear (for our sakes) is that we can give on the webbiness,
rather more than some of our rhetoric (here, said semi-privately). I don't
want to alienate NSA/DoD, say, who do NOT use HTML5 keygen tag when issuing
browsers certs (even though they use Mozilla a lot); and they NEVER will. I
don't want them to feel they could never be an adoption community....because
the very purity of the webbiness becomes a barrier. Those guys a VERY good
security engineers, and they ONLY adopt if their use cases have really
"internalized" the architecture of the standard - which thus has to mesh
with their basic operational environments. If we start with a clash, this
can never happen - since they use high assurance engineering methods.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Henry Story
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 3:34 PM
To: jeff@sayremedia.com
Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-xg-webid@w3.org
Subject: Re: Position Paper for W3C Workshop on Identity

Agree on all below.

The version I was editing is here, if it makes it easier to see the diffs:



On 24 Apr 2011, at 00:29, Jeff Sayre wrote:

>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 19:08, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>>> Thus, WebID is not just for the Web.
>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 1:21 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> Agree, but one should pause at the word "just" here. It makes me wonder:
>>> what else do we have that is bigger? It's a bit like saying Bill 
>>> Gates
> is just
>>> rich....
> Removing 'just' from my sentence would not make any sense. The point 
> is that WebID has a practical role beyond the Web (big W). The 
> Internet is bigger than the Web platform. Non-webby protocols can 
> harness the power of WebID.
>>> Anyway, when talking to browser vendors and builders, one should 
>>> presume that their interest lies focused in the space just 
>>> encompassed by this technology.
>>> :-)
> Of course. The workshop is targeting browser vendors. Therefore, the 
> browser-based Internet. As I've said several times before in this 
> thread, our position paper thus needs to be Web (big W) focused.
> I assumed Kingsley was making a larger point and not referring 
> specifically to our position paper. That is the downside to threaded 
> email discussions that tend to snake around, periodically going off topic
a bit.
> It can sometimes be hard to know what topic is being discussed. :)
> BTW, why have we stopped using Google Docs? I assumed that you were 
> just exporting an HTML version for people's reference and that we 
> would continue our edits in Google Docs. It is impossible for anyone 
> else to make corrections to the document in its present format.
> I would say that at this stage, with the exception of a few edits and 
> proofreading corrections, we are beginning to nitpick with the paper's 
> details. Remember, *all* this paper needs to do is earn us a 
> presentation invite. It does not need to be perfect in all respects 
> with regards to describing WebID. We can go into more detail, be more 
> precise, or paint a bigger picture in our 20-minute talk.
> Jeff

Social Web Architect
Received on Saturday, 23 April 2011 23:56:35 UTC

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