As part of the IETF work (https://docs.bsky.app/blog/taking-at-to-ietf) this is a hotly debated area and I’d expect some solid evolution to happen as part of that process, super encourage anyone interested to get involved there!
116 karma · joined May 20, 2010
As part of the IETF work (https://docs.bsky.app/blog/taking-at-to-ietf) this is a hotly debated area and I’d expect some solid evolution to happen as part of that process, super encourage anyone interested to get involved there!
Thanks for making this, def will be digging in!
https://web.archive.org/web/20010430044121/http://www.jeremi...
Posted it to slashdot at the time too, I miss those green colors ;)
https://slashdot.org/story/98/10/28/1923205/original-netscap...
Speaking personally, and perhaps it is indeed my conditioning, but at 25+ years of marriage I am living that beauty in 1 every day and I know without a doubt it has led me to my best possible life.
DIDs are fundamentally antithetical to privacy and will only enable a deeper and more obscure level of tracking to all applications that use them. They were originally inspired for mapping public blockchain use-cases, but IMO personal identity and related keys should _never_ be put on a public chain, who thinks this could ever be a good idea or architecture?
All of the suggested "workarounds" to layer on privacy to DIDs are just lip service in the spec, there's zero technical requirements for an implementation.
I worry that DIDs based on this spec will be deeply harmful if widely deployed with the multiple layers of abstraction, required dependencies on massively complex things like JSON-LD, and abundance of implementation-time choices. It's such an easy "spec" to embrace and extend by big tech, it has no teeth to prevent tracking abuse and it should develop those as hard normative implementation MUSTs before v1.0 versus the non-normative "Privacy _Considerations_" it has now.
Identity is too important to have it done wrong.
I’m very lucky to still be close with so may of the truly amazing individuals that helped build Jabber, and over the years deeply honored by all those that spoke to me about how it inspired them.
While at the surface it may seem like all of our efforts had little impact on the big “messaging silos”, I am most proud of how much Jabber/XMPP has made it easy for anyone to build/host/extend a messaging and presence service. Twenty years ago the concepts and architectures were opaque, now they’re commonplace.
Happy Birthday!
Personally I have a much broader use case in mind for E3X than QUIC is designed for, incorporating IoT and meta-transport / end-to-end private communication channels. So, I expect they'll diverge more as they both evolve...
We're trying to make it easy for any developer to add/use end-to-end networking that has strong encryption and connectivity built in.
IMO, interop/federation is going to be a tremendous long-term effort and include many standards, but is definitely feasible, inevitable even. There's a lot of innovation happening in messaging again thanks to mobile, we just need to start taking the best of what we've all learned already and work together to improve everyone's stack collectively.
Ultimately it's a public DHT that enables apps to punch through the NATs (to go direct device-to-device) and talk JSON to each other. It doesn't solve all the problems you face being distributed, but it's a good start :)
My plan is to get some standard libs and utils written next to hide the frustrating complexity required to build this mesh with peers and proxy the chaos-management for apps.