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

[Johannes Ernst]

Re-reading what I wrote, I realize that what I said makes no sense  
after the first sentence. Thanks, Drummond, for keeping me honest.

There was a point I was trying to make which I botched, and which is  
also unimportant in this thread. So never mind ... ;-) Sorry.


On Jun 8, 2007, at 16:16, Drummond Reed wrote:

>
>>> Dick Hardt wrote:
>>>
>>> Canonical IDs do not solve B.
>>
>> I would agree with that one.
>>
>> Obviously the XRI architecture assumption ("not as radically
>> decentralized as OpenID") makes that less of a problem in an XRI
>> context. Of course, some would say that that assumption is a problem
>> in itself.
>
> Where was it asserted that XRI architecture is "not as radically
> decentralized as OpenID"? Fen made the point yesterday that XRI  
> architecture
> is *less* centralized that DNS. The choice of identifier  
> authorities under
> URL architecture is DNS registries or IP addresses. XRI architecture
> supports both of those and adds two more: XRI registries and p2p
> authorities. So it's getting less centralized, not more.
>
> Due to the influence of OpenID and other URL-centric technologies,  
> in the
> XRI 3.0 discussions already under way, the TC is looking at  
> formalizing XRI
> resolution of HTTP and HTTPS URIs (URLs) and Handles. Wouldn't it  
> be cool
> for OpenID libraries be able to simply call a resolver to do XRDS  
> resolution
> of any OpenID identifier (URL or XRI), Canonical ID verification  
> (URL or
> XRI), and OpenID service endpoint selection all in one function?
>
> =Drummond