[OpenID] [Fwd: Re: guid openid delegate]

[Jack]

Johnny Bufu wrote:
> 
> On 13-Sep-07, at 1:21 PM, Jack wrote:
>> What is surprising that a suppliedId such as 
>> http://user.example.com/ is not to be subjected to discovery,
> 
> How did you arrive at this conclusion?

For myself, I arrived at the opposite conclusion, through intuition.
Then, in this message: <517F9E6B-45F3-4987-8B54-4E9FE35AAFFE at sxip.com>
you said:

> "For URLs, the claimed identifier is not the result of the (las part
>  of) discovery; it is determined only by the normalization (i.e. the
>  URI-normalized form of the user-supplied id after following all 
> redirects)."
> 
>> whereas user.example.com/ must be discovered, in addition to being 
>> normalized (and both URLs must be subjected to normalisation, yeah?
>> Just because you're a proper URL doesn't mean you're normalised).

user.example.com/ is not a URL (at least, it doesn't have the form of a
URL unless you pre-suppose a hierarchical protocol such as HTTP), and
therefore it must be subjected both to normalisation and discovery.

Is that incorrect?
>> 
>> So absent a clear description of the rationale behind the various 
>> decisions that have been made, one would assume that a suppliedId 
>> that is an incomplete URL, once completed, should then be treated 
>> in the same way as a suppliedID that is a complete URL.
> 
> What exactly are you referring to with complete / incomplete URL, and
>  the act of completing a URL?

I'm referring to one of the requirements for normalisation; taken from
OpenID Auth 2.0 Draft 12, 7.2: "if it does not include a "http" or
"https" scheme, the Identifier MUST be prefixed with the string "http://".

I guess the string "jack" is a complete URL; but in http terms, it's
referred to as a relative URL; and as a bare string, it's impossible to
tell whether it's supposed to be a URL or not. So by "complete URL",
perhaps I meant "recognisable as a URL".

If you feel I'm bugging you, perhaps it might be better if you left it
to someone else (or nobody) to answer my questions. If nobody answers,
that's OK - I'm nobody.

I have little doubt that the reason I have questions is simply because I
don't understand. I'm certainly not trying to attack anything, just to
clarify. I'm an outsider, trying to implement the specs as they develop.
I would have thought that the spec-writers would find it useful to know
what problems people like me have been having interpreting their
documentation.

-- 
Jack Cleaver.