[foaf-protocols] Multiple URIs in SAN extension
scorlosquet at gmail.com
Thu Aug 5 18:55:47 CEST 2010
The WebID spec does not currently cover the case where there are more than
one SAN URI entry in the same certificate. Do we have scenario where this
would be useful?
In a typical WebID authentication workflow, if your WebID provider is down
for some reason, then you cannot authenticate with your WebID (leaving aside
the particular cases of caching and trusted data sources). If your
certificate contained another WebID URI, the Verification Agent could then
dereference this other WebID URI to attempt authentication (provided the
same public key was published at the second WebID Profile Document as well).
The problem though is to know what your WebID URI is once you've
authenticated via an alternate WebID URI. Should the Verification Agent
trust that you are WebID URI #1 when the authentication sequence via WebID
URI #1 didn't work and only WebID URI #2 worked? Clearly no, unless you can
prove that you also own WebID URI #1 by having logged in via this URI in the
past (in which case the Verification Agent would merge the two identities).
Is this a good use case to justify the use of multiple WebID URIs in the
same certificate? It would be equivalent to having to separate certificates,
but the great advantage is that from user point of view you just have to
choose one identity, however many WebID URIs you have associated with this
identity (and you're pretty much sure at least one of your providers/servers
will be up).
<side-note>This raises a related issue. If we expect WebID to take off and
to be easy to publish your own WebID, there ought to be ways to work around
the fact the servers go down, that's one reason why there are so few OpenID
providers and they are all big players providing decent QoS. In the case of
WebID, even if you choose the best software implementation you can find on
the market, you're still dependent on your hosting provider. WebID
provisioning should work on cheap hosting to be truly decentralized avoid
the same centralization OpenID has.</side-node>
Do we have other scenario where it is useful to have multiple URIs? There
might be cases where a URI entry of the SAN extension is not meant to be a
WebID (think other protocols sticking a URI in a certificate like we do).
This might be fine and play nicely with the above scenario as long as the
Verification Agent tries the authentication sequence with each URI entry
until it finds a matching public key in whatever document each URI
thoughts? controversial opinions?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols