[foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
henry.story at bblfish.net
Wed Dec 15 15:53:54 CET 2010
On 15 Dec 2010, at 13:11, peter williams wrote:
> The scope seems very narrow compared to the scope of the provenance example,
> given here recently.
> I could give 10 examples of this scoping tied to the wording. But, until
> folks agree that the scope needs to be generalized, I don't see the point
> arguing with the wording. Before anyone gets defense, there is nothing wrong
> with having an engineering scope.
> For example, wording ties the webid incubation
> - to only protocol designs (which is no longer even tied exclusively to FOAF
> - to social networks (and not other web applications),
We have the Federated Social Web XG as one of the W3C groups listed.
Is there somewhere else that this should appear?
> - to classical https (and not connectionless SSL used in TTLS, or DTLS),
Well I think that is certainly something I'll be happy to look at in there.
We don't of course limit ourselves to the IETF group. The problem is that the
list of external groups to liaise with can be very large. I don't want to put all
the TTLS and DTLS groups.
I have added a note to TTLS and DTLS in the TLS space.
> - to only (IETF-sponsored) cipher suites defining commodity crypto
The intention is certainly not to limit ourselves thus, though practically
we'd rather work with what is currently deployed. For example I doubt that WebId
could not work with any yet to come crypto. Is that note inside TLS not enough?
> - to identified browser users (and not group or server entities, say,
> similarly named).
I agree, we could mention server authentication too.
> Overall, it comes across as an engineering profile of client certs for
> https, rather than discovery aimed at characterizing the nature of the
> research program.
> If I was to enter the forum and propose that the supplicant in an PC or
> phone OS on binding to a switch or wifi access point might use TTLS with
> client certs WITH webids and the access control decision should leverage a
> ping on the semantic web, it would not be in scope - despite being a
> protocol design.
Is that change ok?
> Its not social networking, its not https, its assumes
> browsers leverage SSL sockets in an OS/stack vs a code library in a
> universal browser application,
> I could go to cisco engineers I know and get them interested in semantic
> web, but only as a tool to be applied to the above. I could go to another
> group working on multicast-powered group keying for SSL in custom https
> clients, but their focus in making plugins modules for http and ssl
> libraries, rather than redefining typical browser https experienced used in
> PCs and phones used for twittering.
yes. of course they are all welcome.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org
> [mailto:foaf-protocols-bounces at lists.foaf-project.org] On Behalf Of Henry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:29 AM
> To: foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> Subject: [foaf-protocols] WebID Incubator Charter draft
> Before we send this off, can people please send comments to the wording of
> the draft.
> I recently added IIW and Liberty, xantara as external groups, but am not
> sure the description of their activities are good.
> Any feedback helpful,
> Social Web Architect
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
Social Web Architect
More information about the foaf-protocols