On 1/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Johannes Ernst</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span>> What about we communicate that "two-tier structure" with respect to
<br>> OpenID branding ... more clearly?<br><br>+1, Yes. Differentiating between the core and the myriad of layered capabilities would be make it vastly simpler to clearly communicate what OpenID is all about. We should be very careful to make sure that the "core" is as light, simple, secure, and as easy to implement as possible. Fortunately, it seems to be pretty close to that today.
<br><br>> the foundation of everything OpenID -- Yadis -- was<br>> created for the specific purpose to let everybody<br>> plug in whatever services they like to.<br><br>Yes, of course. To my way of thinking, there are two essential things that OpenID provides:
<br><ol><li>A method for providing site-independent, distributed numerical identity</li><li>A framework for building a wide variety of layered capabilities</li></ol>I believe it would be best, when we speak of OpenID, to focus on just these two things. All else should be spoken of as "layered on", "enabled by" or "compatible with" OpenID. Thus, we should NOT have "OpenId Attribute Exchange" rather, we should have "OpenID Layered Attribute Exchange" or "Attribute Exchange enabled by OpenID".
<br><br>Keep the core of OpenID simple and clean. Otherwise, it will be too hard to talk about this stuff. If this stuff gets too complicated we may have good technology, but we'll lose the marketing war. Let's not let this become like WS* which could have been very simple, yet became comically complicated before anyone even had a chance to begin implementing it.