[OT] Re: foaf+ssl was: XAuth critiques

[Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)]

On 06/09/2010 01:57 AM, From John Kemp:
> Well, perhaps, and I would also note that I actually like self-assertion. I don't have a problem with it for lots of use-cases. I don't think it's a problem that people can lie either.

And considering 
http://esw.w3.org/Foaf%2Bssl/FAQ#How_does_this_improve_over_X.509_or_GPG_Certificates.3F 
it all depends what you want to protect. If it's some social web site 
authentication, it might be reasonable to rely on social buddies. But 
for anything with real value, do you really want to rely on some unknown 
claims and assertions? Would you give out your company's secrets based 
on some folks claiming to know Henry or perform a financial or other 
transaction based on claims made by some web buddies? I wouldn't put my 
money on that ever.

> But the reason people want identity providers, I think, and the potential (note: potential) value they bring is the ability to make an assertion backed up by something close to facts - ie. a verification or "real" authentication process.

In addition to potentially well defined procedures, public key 
infrastructure, warranties, auditing and more...

Regards
Signer: 	Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO
	StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
XMPP: 	startcom at startcom.org <xmpp:startcom at startcom.org>
Blog: 	Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Twitter: 	Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100609/1e97291a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6846 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100609/1e97291a/attachment.bin>