[OpenID] Case for a unified scheme for OpenID "oid:"

[Santosh Rajan]

Please remember "oid:" is a urn and this is consistent with usages like
"tag:something:something".

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have been thinking of OpenID's representing a universal set of
> identities
> > for months now. Given that we all agree that identities must be URI's,
> there
> > is one solution to the problem we can consider for OpenID v.next.
> > One of the problems with OpenID's is that it only supports a subset of
> all
> > URI's, the "http" scheme. One of the solutions is to allow OpenID to
> support
> > more URI schemes. But then I realized this would only let the cat among
> the
> > pigeons. We could not allow an infinite no of schemes that come up in the
> > future asking for OpenID support.
> > Instead I have come to the conclusion that the best solution for OpenID
> is
> > to register its own scheme. I will explain the suggested scheme with the
> > following example.
> > 1) oid:example.com/joe
> > 2) oid:joe @ example.com
> > 3) oid:example.com:1234567890
> > And here is the URI syntax for the 3 examples above
> > 1) oid:<host>[/[[path]][#fragment]
> > 2) oid: <username>@<host>
> > 3) oid: <host>:<id-string>
> > (1) and (2) are self evident. (1) is the http URI. (2) supports the email
> > like identifier. (3) requires more explanation. People are used to
> "id's",
> > which may be an id issued by a govt or bank or any organization that has
> > members. A lot of people already have access to this id which they are
> > already using online. It may be a national identity no, or a company
> > username or whatever. By supporting option (3) we allow those
> organizations
> > who want to support OpenID to continue to allow their users to use the
> same
> > id's they are used to. (Of course i have stretched (3) a bit to include
> govt
> > and banks which is far fetched now considering the security implication,
> but
> > lets assume we will be able to solve those problems).
> > Please feel free to comment on this idea which ever way you like.
>
> I think <host>:<port> is normally used rather than <host>:<id-string>
>
> >
> > --
> > http://hi.im/santosh
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > general at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
> >
> >
>



-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091128/7a925132/attachment.htm>