One of the things I am working on this week writing up some community history.<br><br>What does free mean? In the context of open standards this is a valid question. Originally the IP that is in XRI was all tied up and owned by a company. It was working on bringing it to market....at a meeting attended by internet notables about it....basically they said this is great but it will NEVER work if you own the IP no one will adopt it.
<br><br>So the company did the right thing and turned over all the IP to a nonprofit to be held for the public good - <a href="http://XDI.ORG">XDI.ORG</a> (it was originally XNSORG). <br><br>It was clear that a name space was a critical element of this technology - - this would have to be run by someone. This is what this company does now...It runs a global registry for the namespace. People are not howling wildly that OpenID is based on domain names that you must pay a yearly fee for. Both are world wide infrastructure that needs to work otherwise the web doesn't work. Money needs to come from somewhere to pay for it and registration of names is one place to do that. (Yes I have heard from my anarchist geek friends about how in theory it would be possible to do addressing in ways without a central root).
<br><br>The XRI/XDI community is small but vibrant and working really hard to develop open source code that folks can use to do all sorts of stuff. It has a range of folks participating in it including domain registrars from around the world, Boeing, Higgins project, small starups. The community that founded the first Identity Commons had extensive connection to the i-names technology because at the time...3-4 years ago it was the only user-centric game in town.
<br><br>In terms of the including of XRI's in OpenID. .. I already said it before in this thread there was 3 different valid approaches for distributed user-centric identity that were all going to go to market and compete...imagine if there was 3 different login boxes that were proliferating....you all wouldn't be here adopting the one thing that everyone worked hard on for a year to get convergence (The 4th approach even joined our efforts in the summer). There is momentum behind what is now branded OpenID2 because all these different efforts collaborated.
<br><br>We had a period where we considered a different like Yaids or a name to be determined...it was decided that we not move away from the most unrecognizable brand but update it to a version 2. <br><br>I am happy to answer any more questions about how we got here or why things are the way they are. I have been working in this little niche for almost three years full time. Some folks like Drummond have been working on brining about this sort of technology for 15 years. There are 'really simple' easy ways to do things - how OpenID started out. There are ways to deal with more complex use-cases and business needs too. Having a balance and supporting things working together is what this is about.
<br><br>Just so it is not a surprise the OpenID folks are talking to the SAML folks about how those two standards can work well together. <br><br>=Kaliya <br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Dmitry Shechtman</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I just realized that I missed a spot. The "kind suggestion" refers to a part<br>from Victor's response he had chosen to omit for some reason:<br><br>> I'd be willing to test your application with my i-name when you're ready,
<br>if that helps.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a><br><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general