Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?

Dick Hardt dick at sxip.com
Fri Jun 8 23:26:56 UTC 2007


You are still trusting one registry. Of course it is your choice, but  
you have a single point of failure. Do you think they will still be  
around in 50 years?

On 8-Jun-07, at 4:20 PM, Recordon, David wrote:

> I don't see how it requires a centralized registry, if I choose to  
> trust
> that LiveJournal, or some ugly URL from AOL, etc will never go away  
> then
> that is my choice.
>
> --David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Dick Hardt
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:08 PM
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: Re: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
>
>
> On 8-Jun-07, at 4:00 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Drummond Reed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
>>>> provides. It
>>>> doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID
>>>> itself,
>>>> i.e., it simply provides a way to map a reassignable URL or XRI  
>>>> to a
>>>> persistent URL or XRI.
>>>
>>> Dick Hardt wrote:
>>>
>>> The persistent URL or XRI *is* a master directory. What do you do
>>> when the persistent identifier is compromised, goes out of
>>> business ...
>>>
>>> That is problem B.
>>>
>>> Canonical IDs do not solve B.
>>
>> I completely agree that B is a hard problem. However Canonical IDs
>> solve B
>> if the identifier authority for the Canonical ID follows business and
>> operational practices intended to solve B.
>
> And I think there is a solution that does not require a single,
> central registry.
>
> One of the other issues with the registry is it is challenging to
> provide directed identities.
>
> -- Dick
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>




More information about the specs mailing list