RE: WebID prehistory

On the multi URI issue then, addressing intranet/internet name scoping subissue (who can see one's authority?), perhaps we have a half way house. in the report's tone We dont design for it (since it too contenious). But, the extensibility is open so vendors can build upon the framework to do address their actual extranet deployments in the multi-year cloud investement plans (ignoring somewhat our theories of how the web/cloud ought to be, perhaps). Its gray deliberately, so we are not prescriptive on the topic. We are black and white on "promoted" conceptions, however. They have to really do the promoted concept, to have legitimacy in adding vendor value for their own extranet concepts. (Ive never found Microsoft for one to do other than this, being a working compromise that makes lots of folks get a win-win).
 
So, we may not want to work on federated ldap namespaces between cloud tenants, creating private graphs. But, to ensure a Goolge, SalesForce, Ping, Microsoft et al can join in the WG to follow this XG, the work is not specified in such a way as to hinder that world and its for-revenue businesses. webid is still applicable. Vendors *should* do yet more  profiling, to tune up remaining issues for those more resrtricted nether-web worlds.
 
I look at X.509 as having done this perfectly as a ISO/IETF working group, enabling the likes of Microsoft to use the OTHER-NAME macro in SANs and deploy their UPN/SPC concept of naming channel and principals - leveraging kerberos transitive handshakes in federated namespaces. Do this again, we will have a winner. One can see now their SAML IDP webpages offering not only digest, client certs and kerberos page... for user auth, but also webid protocol. 
 
> From: henry.story@bblfish.net
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:12:22 +0100
> CC: michael.hausenblas@deri.org; public-xg-webid@w3.org
> To: home_pw@msn.com
> Subject: Re: WebID prehistory
> 
> 
> On 3 Feb 2011, at 17:13, Peter Williams wrote:
> 
> > Concerning ldap visibility and scope, we should ask: are all https endpoints publicly accesible? No. The vast majority of wifi routers in homes are http endpoints, but the endpoint is only exposed on the LAN. The same is true for most if not all the modems, with their administration http endpoints.
> 
> agree. But the issue is not whether you can make a system designed to be global also function in a restricted way, but if you can make a system designed to work in a restricted way to also work in a global environment.
> 
>