[foaf-protocols] Standardising the foaf+ssl protocol to launch the Social Web

Seth Russell russell.seth at gmail.com
Fri Jul 16 22:58:38 CEST 2010


On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Henry Story <henry.story at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well you can get the foaf, the foaf can publish the email, then you can use
> fingerpoint to verify the email.
>
> Henry
>

Yep it certainly is within the realm of possibility.  I do believe it's been
proven to actually work.    Thing is foaf is not even in this standard,
foaf does not provide the answer in most cases, and there are so few real
people out there with their published emaisl in dereferencable foaf
documents that it is not feasable for a website to devote the development
time it would take to implement it.    What's more the addition of the extra
button to sign up forms is an extra complexity that webmasters simply will
not do, unless they are pretty sure that the work will gain them more
clients.  We are not all compulsive programmers who program just for the fun
of making something work.   With this standard, we get nothing that
bootstraps the process.   You guys need to take the chicken and egg problem
seriously.

Seth Russell
Alpha testing: tagtalking.net
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth



> On 16 Jul 2010, at 15:12, Seth Russell wrote:
>
> > I think it's very important that the specification standardize some way
> for
> > a merchant to get a simple email address so that they can communicate
> back
> > to their customer.  De-referencing a file in an unknown vocabulary to
> find a
> > simple email address will be a  non starter for almost all merchants who
> are
> > interesting in using this protocol to identify their customers.
> >
> > Seth Russell
> > Alpha testing: tagtalking.net
> > Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
> > Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
> > Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
> > Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
> > Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Henry Story wrote:
> >>> On 16 Jul 2010, at 13:47, Toby Inkster wrote:
> >>>> Let's consider:
> >>>>
> >>>>     subjectAltName = "URI:mailto:mail at tobyinkster.co.uk"
> >>>>     subjectAltName = "URI:acct:me at tobyinkster.co.uk<URI%3Aacct%3Ame at tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <URI%3Aacct%3Ame at tobyinkster.co.uk <URI%253Aacct%253Ame at tobyinkster.co.uk>
> >
> >> "
> >>>>
> >>>> I consider these flat-out wrong. Every URI that begins "mailto:"
> >>>> identifies a mailbox, not a foaf:Agent. Similarly, every URI that
> begins
> >>>> with "acct:" identifies an account, not a foaf:Agent. The URI given in
> >>>> the subjectAltName must be a direct identifier for the agent.
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand:
> >>>>
> >>>>     subjectAltName = "email:mail at tobyinkster.co.uk<email%3Amail at tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <email%3Amail at tobyinkster.co.uk <email%253Amail at tobyinkster.co.uk>>
> >> "
> >>>>
> >>>> is a different matter. That's fine as far as I'm concerned.
> >>>>
> >>>> For an explanation, what you should do is consider the subjectAltName
> to
> >>>> be an RDF graph. Each item in the subjectAltName represents a triple.
> >>>> For each triple, the subject is implicit - it's the holder of the
> >>>> certificate; the predicate is determined by the part of the item
> before
> >>>> the first colon; the object by the part after the first colon. So, for
> >>>> example, the following subjectAltName:
> >>>>
> >>>>     subjectAltName = email:mail at tobyinkster.co.uk<email%3Amail at tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <email%3Amail at tobyinkster.co.uk <email%253Amail at tobyinkster.co.uk>>
> >> ,
> >>>>             email:tai at g5n.co.uk <email%3Atai at g5n.co.uk> <
> email%3Atai at g5n.co.uk <email%253Atai at g5n.co.uk>>,
> >>>>             URI:http://tobyinkster.co.uk/#i
> >>>
> >>> what is this email: ? Is that a new protocol scheme? Or is that part
> >>> of the X509 spec?
> >>
> >> subjectAltName can include multiple values of the types:
> >>  email
> >>  URI
> >>  DNS
> >>  RID
> >>  IP
> >>  dirName
> >>  otherName
> >>
> >> see:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/x509v3_config.html#Subject_Alternative_Name_
> >>
> >> I personally include my WebID and my email within my x509 certificate,
> >> it's that other bit of critical identifying information which let's
> >> people communicate with me.
> >>
> >> IMHO it's a very important bit of info to include and is worth giving
> >> some thought and dare I say even mentioning in the protocol.
> >>
> >> Certainly though we need people to be aware they may come across several
> >> values in a single subjectAltName (some libs don't cater for this).
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Nathan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foaf-protocols mailing list
> >> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> >> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foaf-protocols mailing list
> > foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> > http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100716/6d93bb35/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list