[OpenID board] May 19, 2010 OpenID Board Meeting Minutes

[John Bradley]

Dick,

You know that XRI is used by multiple OP.   It is not something a RP site demands.

In discovery going forward we need to look at how and if XRI identifiers are supported.

Because LRDD and XRI are so close you can normalize a XRI by adding @xri.net to the end and doing webfinger/LRDD resolution to get a XRD.

People may be opposed to XRI on philosophical grounds, and want it removed.

Breaking peoples openID without a good reason should be avoided.

I prefer to look at it as coming up with a suitable discovery flow and then determining what identifier formats are appropriate.

If at the end of the day XRI can't be supported we will discover that.   I would prefer not to make that a precondition.

There are a number of equally under-utilized features of AX we could look at:)

John B.


On 2010-05-31, at 9:48 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:

> 
> On 2010-05-31, at 6:33 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> 
>> I do not understand why we need to remove XRI.
>> XRI being complex etc. is an illusion or badly written code.
>> If XRI is complex, acct: URI is complex, too.
>> They virtually are the same thing from the processing point of view.
>> Keeping the identifier compatibility is really important for the RPs and Users.
> 
> I don't think there is much usage of URI, and many sites are not supporting it. Removing under utilized features that are not adding value simplifies the specs and implementations. 
> 
> Nat: do you know of sites that are heavily using XRIs?
> 
> -- Dick
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100531/ae16d0b8/attachment-0002.bin>