concerns about each user having a unique "URL"

[Dick Hardt]

Do you have a different word Paul?

I suggested "Private Identifier" to be how it is described to the  
User. Thoughts?

wrt. the specification, it is important that the spec be normative  
and complete wrt. protocol, but it is not necessary for the spec to  
describe all the things that can be accomplished with the protocol.

-- Dick

On 10-Nov-06, at 11:03 AM, Paul Trevithick wrote:

> 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
>
>