Call directed identity "anonymous login"? (was RE: concerns about each user having a unique "URL")

[Drummond Reed]

I like "Private Identifier". It's more accurate and still easy for the
public to understand.

In terms of the spec, my editorial feedback is simply that the spec needs to
be say a little more about this feature, which so far (I'm about 1/3 of the
way through) has just amounted to a sentence or two in 2-3 places mentioning
this. (I have, however, found what I believe are some mistakes in the
glossary regarding the updated Identifier terminology, but they have been
easy to correct.)

I'll go back and update my editorial suggestions to talk about the "Private
Identifier" feature (unless anyone else has still a better suggestion).

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick at sxip.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 10:55 PM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: 'Paul Trevithick'; 'Josh Hoyt'; general at openid.net
Subject: Re: Call directed identity "anonymous login"? (was RE: concerns
about each user having a unique "URL")

Good dialog Drummond.

I don't think we need to change the specification, a good technically  
accurate description is best I think. There are numerous terms in the  
spec that likely will not be used by the general public.

Given that, I think we do need a term for directed identity for End  
Users.

We have looked at using Private Identifier -> conveys that other  
people don't see it.

-- Dick

On 10-Nov-06, at 10:40 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:

> I agree with Paul - although I like the technical precision of the  
> term
> "directed identity", it's too esoteric for the general public, who  
> are going
> to be very interested in this feature (I already find it's the most
> frequently asked question about OpenID 2.0.)
>
> I started a read-through today of the proposed Draft 11 spec to make
> editorial suggestions (I plan to submit it back to the editors by  
> the end of
> the weekend). I find it really does need more a little more  
> explanation of
> this feature. In crafting some suggested text for this, I found myself
> struggling with what to call this feature in terms the general  
> public will
> understand (even though it's a technical spec, the name of this  
> feature
> should IMHO be the same thing we want the general public to call it).
>
> The term Josh uses, "IdP-driven identifier selection", is technically
> accurate, but somewhat like "directed identity", I fear I it will  
> be lost on
> the general public.
>
> The best candidate I can think of so far is "anonymous login",  
> because that
> seems to go straight to the heart of the benefit to the End User.
>
> Is it strictly anonymous? No, it's pseudononymous. Furthermore, using
> IdP-driven identifier selection, an End User could in fact use this  
> feature
> and end up deciding to use one of their public, easily correlatable  
> Claimed
> Identifiers. So it's not always strictly pseudononymous either.
>
> But "anonymous login" still seems to be the best name I can think  
> of that
> lets the general public quickly grok the essence of this feature.
>
> Does anyone else have a better suggestion?
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevithick [mailto:paul at socialphysics.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:04 AM
> To: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Drummond Reed'
> Cc: general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: concerns about each user having a unique "URL"
>
> FWIW, I've found that that words like directed and omni-directional  
> are
> confusing to folks. I *think* Kim introduced these words first (not  
> sure),
> but I don't think they work. -Paul
>
> Josh wrote:
>>
>> On 11/9/06, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net> wrote:
>>> I'm surprised the 2.0 spec you cite (draft 10) has no mention of
>> directed
>>> identity
>>
>> I am the one responsible for the term "directed identity" not
>> appearing in the specification.
>> I think "directed identity" is a pretty nebulous term, especially
>> since it includes the word "identity" which is notoriously hard to
>> define.
>>
>> I wrote about the feature that can be used to implement "directed
>> identity", IdP-driven identifier selection. "Directed identity" is an
>> IdP feature that requires IdP-driven identifier selection, but it is
>> not the only thing that is enabled by IdP-driven identifier  
>> selection.
>> If you have IdP-driven identifier selection, then (IMO) "directed
>> identity" is easy to envision.
>>
>> Josh
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>