Draft OpenID v.Next Discovery working group charter

SitG Admin sysadmin at shadowsinthegarden.com
Thu Apr 15 02:46:15 UTC 2010


>So what Identifier types are you thinking of?
>
>http:/https: URL
>acct:  email looking identifiers
>XRI
>other?

I was thinking that ".onion" TLD's could be routed through Tor, 
though perhaps it would be better to let XRI gateway to it. The goal 
for OpenID v.Next is having a number (perhaps 1, but probably more) 
of specifications that lay out how discovery will take place: as soon 
as there are enough to cover all the critical areas, v.Next should be 
counted done on that point. The key question, to my mind, is whether 
more plugins can be accepted (and officially approved) before 
v.Next+1 - if not, establishing some criteria in advance (and as the 
WG members who are approving/denying the v.Next specs are still 
familiar with the criteria they use for that process) could be a 
helpful addition to the charter.

>Do you think some should be MTI (Mandatory to Implement)  and others optional?

I'm not concerned about various features being mandatory to develop 
for v.Next, or include in the libraries, so long as developers are 
free to selectively disable the methods *they* distrust and still 
call it OpenID.

The strongest I'd be comfortable with is "enabled by default" (feel 
free to warn me that disabling it can break OpenID), but if I *want* 
to shoot myself in the foot, let me.

-Shade


More information about the specs mailing list