[OpenID] Community Opinion on OID 2.1 Discovery and Identifiers...

[John Bradley]

David,

I tried to vote but RPX and Jyte seems to have some issue with me :)

One option that should be discussed is abstracting all identifiers out  
of the core spec.

When I originally proposed that last year in the early 2.1 discussions  
it was rejected.

Unless we have some reasonable abstraction layer for identifiers  
adding new ones will never work properly.

My proposal is that all identifiers including URL are removed from the  
core spec and placed in there respective binding extension documents.

If this is rejected due to the argument that developers are only  
willing to read one document, then my argument that leaving URL in the  
core spec makes all the other identifiers second class citizens is  
proved.

This again raises the question of what is openID.  Is it an  
authentication protocol,  a discovery methodology,  a Identity  
abstraction layer for applications,  or a marketing term?

I think we need to understand the answers to the latter questions  
before deciding what should be in the core spec.

John B.

On 5-Jun-09, at 3:00 PM, general-request at openid.net wrote:

> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:51:48 +0000
> From: David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com>
> Subject: [OpenID] Community Opinion on OID 2.1 Discovery and
> 	Identifiers...
> To: general at openid.net
> Message-ID:
> 	<51dae84d0906051151i24578169l2595c9d4e291bb1d at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 	boundary=0016364582b282ac08046b9e62a0
>
> --0016364582b282ac08046b9e62a0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> The point below (about the community needing to decide if it's going  
> to
> support webfinger) is just one of many questions I'd like community to
> decide concerning OID Auth 2.1 Discovery and Identifier support.
>
> Maybe this is where a WG should be formed....I'm not really sure.   
> It seems
> kind of backwards to form a working group about something like email
> identifiers (e.g.) and then come back to the community with some  
> decision.
> It seems like the community should reach some consensus first, and  
> then we
> start a WG.  Perhaps I have the wrong notion of what a Working Group  
> is.
>
> At any rate, *in the absence of a WG* on any of these issues, I'm  
> curious to
> know the community's opinion on these questions so we can all know  
> what the
> general consensus is.
>
> So, at the risk of igniting a firestorm, I created a bunch of Jyte  
> claims
> and embedded them in the wiki.  Please share your vote (and thus your
> opinion) if you so wish.
>
> https://openid.pbworks.com/Identifier-and-Discovery-2_1-Questions
>
> Also, please note that I'm not authoritative about the questions.   
> Feel free
> to embed your own claim into the wiki page (though I tried to be  
> fair in the
> framing of the questions).
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz at google.com>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I Webfinger gives you everything you need. The OpenID community  
>>> just needs
>>> to decide whether the email-like identifiers falling out of  
>>> webfinger are
>>> acceptable OpenIDs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think you have a raised a very valid issue here. I didn't realize  
>> that
>> first time round. You are right. I don't see any point in  
>> continuing with
>> the email issue without a clear answer to this question.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090605/cbbda6ee/attachment.htm>