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

[John Bradley]

David,

I think it comes down to deciding what our abstract identity model for  
openID is and proceeding from there.

The conflict between URLs and XRI has more to do with having multiple  
names that resolve to a single claimed_id where with URLs there is a  
one to one relationship.    I believe it was that impedance mismatch  
more than library complexity that prevented people from seeing any  
advantage to XRI.

The two identifier types also have different approaches to identifier  
recycling, and portability.

We need a single model and then fit the identifiers to it rather than  
trying to adapt the core to the identifiers in a piecemeal fashion.

The first questions we need to answer:
1.  Are we going to support many to one relationships,  or enforce a  
one to one relationship?
2. Are we going to support identifier portability?
3.  Are we going to decouple the display ID from the primary key?

John B.

On 7-Jun-09, at 11:13 AM, David Fuelling wrote:

> Replies inline...
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:03 PM, John Bradley  
> <john.bradley at wingaa.com> wrote:
> I am referring to identifier abstraction to make certain that we  
> clearly understand the need for a primary key vs a display identifier.
>
> +1.  This is a very valid issue.
>
>
> We ran into this with XRI and the presumption that the claimed_id is  
> what is displayed for the user.
>
> With XMPP identifiers you may have multiple identifiers that resolve  
> to the same XRD and hence have the same claimed_id but may want your  
> input identifier represented in some way.
>
> Perhaps we need more that one identifier at the API layer.
>
> +1.
>
>
> What I am saying is that if the core spec assumes URI then there  
> will be a built in bias as there is now.
>
> Wondering _how_ you would describe an OpenID Identifier if it's not  
> a URI...would you specify string-text (with x,y, z, etc as allowed  
> characters)?  Or anything goes?
>
> The only reason I ask is that is seems most Identifiers (in the  
> generic sense) are URI's with a scheme: (http://; xri://; ldap://;  
> mailto:; uri://; etc).
>
> Are JID's not URI's?
>
> We need to consider how provider portability could be achieved or at- 
> least not be precluded by core design choices.
>
> +1
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090607/b8445bcc/attachment.htm>