[foaf-protocols] Webid Spec: Reference to the X.509 RFC 5280?
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Mon Aug 16 15:11:03 CEST 2010
On 16 August 2010 14:38, Dan Brickley <danbri at danbri.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen at openlinksw.com>
> > On 8/16/10 12:16 PM, Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> The PKIX spec (RFC 5280) is based on X.509, so it does repeat some of
> >> the content of the X.509 spec and puts it into context (for a PKI).
> >> However, the permitted values for the SAN are in the X.509
> >> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.509-200508-I/en
> >> (section 220.127.116.11)
> >> Regarding Webfinger/Fingerpoint, I'm not quite sure how widespread this
> >> is yet.
> > Bruno,
> > Since GMAIL and AOL both support Webfinger, I think its safe to assume
> > wide spread use of resolvable "acct:" and "mailto:" scheme URIs which
> > are discovered via emerging .well-known/host-meta resource mechanism and
> associated XRD resources.
> I'm not sure there is quite so much enthusiasm for acct: around
> currently, in particular Eran seems to be having second thoughts. For
> eg see discussion around
1. I think the webid spec should focus on dereferencing HTTP URI's
2. Other schemes are allowed but I suggest dereferencing is out of scope of
the core spec.
3. With draft specs such as webfinger, I tend to look for guidance from the
wider community as they evolve and the W3C TAG.
WebID should not try to be all things to all people. This is possibly a
mistake OpenID had in its very early days.
Personally, I'd stick to a solid way to authenticate with an HTTP URI and
leave architects and implementors to extend things it as needed.
> ps. somewhat related, discussion of 3 different flavours of identifier
> in OAuth2-based "OpenID Connect",
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols