<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [OpenID] No benefits of XRI i-names/i-numbers asOpenIDs(was:isopenid 2.0 a lightweight identity system?)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On my Treo...<BR>
<BR>
One of the reasons we didn't choose to just tell everyone to use xri.net is it would limit the use of XRIs in OpenID to those which are globally resolvable. Just as you can have an internal DNS server, you can do the same with XRI.<BR>
<BR>
The downside is that resolving XRIs is not as ubiquitos as URLs, which meant more than just "resolve the XRI" had to go into the spec.<BR>
<BR>
--David<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Chasen, Les [<A HREF="mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz">mailto:les.chasen@neustar.biz</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 01:04 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
To: David Fuelling; Dmitry Shechtman<BR>
Cc: general@openid.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] No benefits of XRI i-names/i-numbers asOpenIDs(was:isopenid 2.0 a lightweight identity system?)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: general-bounces@openid.net [<A HREF="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net">mailto:general-bounces@openid.net</A>]<BR>
On<BR>
> Behalf Of David Fuelling<BR>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:56 AM<BR>
> To: 'Dmitry Shechtman'<BR>
> Cc: general@openid.net<BR>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] No benefits of XRI i-names/i-numbers as<BR>
> OpenIDs(was:isopenid 2.0 a lightweight identity system?)<BR>
><BR>
> > -----Original Message-----<BR>
> > From: general-bounces@openid.net [<A HREF="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net">mailto:general-bounces@openid.net</A>]<BR>
On<BR>
> > Behalf Of Dmitry Shechtman<BR>
> ><BR>
> > So please don't make simple things complicated, i-names could be<BR>
easily<BR>
> > support using idproxy.net like proxy, we don't need it in the core<BR>
> OpenID<BR>
> > spec.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > There's nothing wrong with OpenID resolving i-names to<BR>
<A HREF="http://xri.net/">http://xri.net/</A><BR>
> > URIs. Since there is a proxy there already, it should simply handle<BR>
the<BR>
> > rest.<BR>
> ><BR>
><BR>
> Sorry if this has been answered, but isn't <A HREF="http://xri.net">http://xri.net</A> an endpoint<BR>
for<BR>
> a<BR>
> registrar?<BR>
[Chasen, Les]<BR>
No. XRI.NET is nothing more than a proxy resolver for XRIs. It is<BR>
based on the OpenXRI code base. Anyone can run one and in fact over<BR>
time they should be brought down to the desktop.<BR>
<BR>
(i.e., there could be competitors to xri.net)?<BR>
[Chasen, Les]<BR>
There is nothing to compete on. It is just a resolver.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> If this is true, the above is a bit like saying, "the openid spec<BR>
should<BR>
> simply perform URL resolution using Verisign's DNS directory".<BR>
><BR>
> Why should the OpenId spec coronate a given vendor/endpoint? A "good"<BR>
> spec<BR>
> should be more agnostic (like it is now).<BR>
[Chasen, Les]<BR>
I think it is. It is just pointing people to a public server that can<BR>
resolve an iname so that folks don't have to install one themselves.<BR>
Xri.net is not the authoritative source for an XRI.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> general mailing list<BR>
> general@openid.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</A><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
general mailing list<BR>
general@openid.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>