Re: [VCARDDAV] Signed vCards

[DataPacRat <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Michael Angstadt
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 1, 2013, DataPacRat wrote:
>>
>> Would it be within reason for me to use the following as an example
>> for the DATE parameter?
>>
>> N;DATE=1987-12-17/2013-08-22:Bradley
>> N;DATE=2013-08-22:Chelsea
>> GENDER;DATE=1987-12-17/2013-08-22::M
>> GENDER;DATE=2013-08-22:F

> I don't think that example is appropriate.

Would a more historical example be within bounds? Eg:

N:Chevalier d'Eon
BDAY:1728-10-5
GENDER;DATE=1728-10-5/1774:M
GENDER;DATE=1774/1810:F
DEATHDATE:1810-05-21

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevalier_d%27Eon and links therefrom)


> Also, why are you including the SOCIALMEDIA property in this specification?
> What does that have to do with signed vCards?

The primary purpose of signed vCards is to allow for
cryptographically-authenticated "identity assertion" (as opposed to
current vCards, which are more along the lines of "identity
description".). For various reasons, online identities have become
more complicated than in the early years of the internet, and there
are a number of situations in which it's infeasible to use, say, a
simple email address as a canonical identity string. The existing URL
property is insufficient to describe such things as forum profiles,
rss feeds, Tor-network hidden-site communications, and so on. Thus, I
believe the SOCIALMEDIA property is necessary to have established in
order for signed vCards to fulfill their purpose.

There doesn't seem to be any particularly good reason to split
SOCIALMEDIA into its own Internet Draft, and there is arguably good
purpose to keeping it with the rest of the identity-assertion bundle
of properties, so it's currently all part of the same draft. If the
benefits to creating such a split were shown to outweigh the costs of
working with two I-Ds instead of one, that could change, but I don't
expect that to happen.



Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, I could be wrong."