[cap-talk] Firefox and identifiability - smart users needed for Petnames/YURL?

[Jed at Webstart]

At 04:31 PM 2/8/2005, Ian G wrote:
...

>However, I suspect none of this reaches the realms
>of practicality until it is decided what the basic
>unit of trust is going to be in the browser.  Right
>now it might be an x.509 key.  Other proposals have
>been made.

Why does this concern you?  Go ahead and use an x.509
key now and adjust to something else later if it comes
along.  Where's the problem?

>Unfortunately, we can't see enough
>into the future to be able to decide how that is
>going to play out,

You seem to be able to see far enough to see
value in the name/identity binding that the Petname
mechanism adds.  You seem to see far enough
ahead to see value in the "YURL" (fingerprint or
the like) addition to a URL to get a positive ID
to bind with the Petname.  Isn't that enough to
move forward?  Why wallow in the ambiguous
and clearly error prone present when we can
see technical improvements - if we can get
a consensus...

>so until we do know, John Halleck's criticism rules, IMHO.

Which criticism was that?  Perhaps this one?:

Halleck: "It is a nice discussion, but baring smarter users,
I think it is theoretical..."

I don't see anything limiting the Petname mechanism and what
is essentially the YURL mechanism to the 'theoretical' in the
absence of smarter users.  Both seem to me to add value
for smart or not smart (perhaps kinder would be experienced
or inexperienced) users.