[OpenID] No benefits of XRI i-names/i-numbers as OpenIDs(was:isopenid 2.0 a lightweight identity system?)
les.chasen at neustar.biz
Tue Feb 13 21:03:46 UTC 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net]
> Behalf Of David Fuelling
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:56 AM
> To: 'Dmitry Shechtman'
> Cc: general at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] No benefits of XRI i-names/i-numbers as
> OpenIDs(was:isopenid 2.0 a lightweight identity system?)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net]
> > Behalf Of Dmitry Shechtman
> > So please don't make simple things complicated, i-names could be
> > support using idproxy.net like proxy, we don't need it in the core
> > spec.
> > There's nothing wrong with OpenID resolving i-names to
> > URIs. Since there is a proxy there already, it should simply handle
> > rest.
> Sorry if this has been answered, but isn't http://xri.net an endpoint
No. XRI.NET is nothing more than a proxy resolver for XRIs. It is
based on the OpenXRI code base. Anyone can run one and in fact over
time they should be brought down to the desktop.
(i.e., there could be competitors to xri.net)?
There is nothing to compete on. It is just a resolver.
> If this is true, the above is a bit like saying, "the openid spec
> simply perform URL resolution using Verisign's DNS directory".
> Why should the OpenId spec coronate a given vendor/endpoint? A "good"
> should be more agnostic (like it is now).
I think it is. It is just pointing people to a public server that can
resolve an iname so that folks don't have to install one themselves.
Xri.net is not the authoritative source for an XRI.
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
More information about the general