- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:18:29 -0500
- To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 1/3/12 7:43 PM, Henry Story wrote: >> Henry, >>> >> Ah you want me to imagine doing the opposite of what the X509 spec says one should do? >> > >> > Of course not! >> > >>> >> Put URIs in the DN and human readable names in the SAN??? >> > >> > Of course not! >> > >> > I am saying, and I was pretty darn clear about this: >> > Put Addresses in the DN. > But that's not what they are for. In any case what practical value does this bring? > >> > Put Names in the SAN. Instead of mandating de-referencable Names. Hence my reference to URN inclusion. > Well the SAN is defined already in X509. We can but URI's there. That's what we are doing. And it all works fine. > > >> > >>> >> >>> >> Come on. You're joking right? >> > Digest my comments properly. I couldn't be clearer about what I am suggesting. > yes, it's clear. And a -1 from me, no practical value. I didn't ask for anyone's vote. Let alone subjective commentary devoid of proper understanding of the problem at hand. Look, there is a degree of myopia creeping into this endeavor that antithetical to what I find interesting. You believe in disruptive revolution. I don't. I believe in pragmatic evolution and broad engagement. I don't see WebID as a vehicle for disruptive revolution. Clearly you do! BTW -- putting OpenLink Software aside, how many industry players actually use WebID in any capacity? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:18:53 UTC