<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">David,<div><br></div><div>I am on the modular spec side. I believe that other auth methods could also be considered. </div><div><br></div><div>I don't see why LID or others need to be excluded from the overall framework that is openID.</div><div><br></div><div>I am referring to identifier abstraction to make certain that we clearly understand the need for a primary key vs a display identifier.</div><div><br></div><div>We ran into this with XRI and the presumption that the claimed_id is what is displayed for the user.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps we need more that one identifier at the API layer.</div><div><br></div><div>What I am saying is that if the core spec assumes URI then there will be a built in bias as there is now.</div><div><br></div><div>We need to consider how provider portability could be achieved or at-least not be precluded by core design choices.</div><div><br></div><div>John B.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 5-Jun-09, at 4:27 PM, David Fuelling wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">Replies inline...<br><br>On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:28 PM, John Bradley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com">john.bradley@wingaa.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style="">David,<div><br></div><div>I tried to vote but RPX and Jyte seems to have some issue with me :)</div><div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Wierd, aren't those two products made by the same company?<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div><br></div><div>One option that should be discussed is abstracting all identifiers out of the core spec.</div> <div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>+1<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div><br></div><div>When I originally proposed that last year in the early 2.1 discussions it was rejected.</div> <div><br></div><div>Unless we have some reasonable abstraction layer for identifiers adding new ones will never work properly.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Can you detail this a bit more? Maybe I'm missing something, but if 2.1 says something like, "an identifier that can be resolved to an XRD document is can be used", wouldn't this work? If we have an XRD, then we should be able to do the OpenID dance.<br> <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div></div><div><br></div><div>My proposal is that all identifiers including URL are removed from the core spec and placed in there respective binding extension documents.</div> <div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I am open to this. More and more I'm leaning towards the idea that their should be "Identifier" parity...namely, if you can give me an XRD, then you can be my identifier (somebody should write a song with that title).<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div></div><div>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.</div> <div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think the JSF (XMPP) has disproved this, at least from the perspective that a successful spec can have a "core", with supplemental pieces of the spec. Whether or not XMPP is more difficult to understand than OpenID is debatable. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div></div><div>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?</div> </div></blockquote><div><br>I think OpenID is a little bit of each.<br><br>I might re-frame the question to be "how to we enable OpenID to play in all of these different areas". I think a good solution would be a more modular spec.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div></div><div><br></div><div>I think we need to understand the answers to the latter questions before deciding what should be in the core spec.</div> <div><br></div><div>John B.</div><div><br><div><div>On 5-Jun-09, at 3:00 PM, <a href="mailto:general-request@openid.net" target="_blank">general-request@openid.net</a> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -webkit-monospace; font-size: 10px;">Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:51:48 +0000<br> From: David Fuelling <<a href="mailto:sappenin@gmail.com" target="_blank">sappenin@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: [OpenID] Community Opinion on OID 2.1 Discovery and<br><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Identifiers...<br> To:<span> </span><a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank">general@openid.net</a><br>Message-ID:<br><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><<a href="mailto:51dae84d0906051151i24578169l2595c9d4e291bb1d@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">51dae84d0906051151i24578169l2595c9d4e291bb1d@mail.gmail.com</a>><br> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>boundary=0016364582b282ac08046b9e62a0<br><br>--0016364582b282ac08046b9e62a0<br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br> <br>The point below (about the community needing to decide if it's going to<br>support webfinger) is just one of many questions I'd like community to<br>decide concerning OID Auth 2.1 Discovery and Identifier support.<br> <br>Maybe this is where a WG should be formed....I'm not really sure. It seems<br>kind of backwards to form a working group about something like email<br>identifiers (e.g.) and then come back to the community with some decision.<br> It seems like the community should reach some consensus first, and then we<br>start a WG. Perhaps I have the wrong notion of what a Working Group is.<br><br>At any rate, *in the absence of a WG* on any of these issues, I'm curious to<br> know the community's opinion on these questions so we can all know what the<br>general consensus is.<br><br>So, at the risk of igniting a firestorm, I created a bunch of Jyte claims<br>and embedded them in the wiki. Please share your vote (and thus your<br> opinion) if you so wish.<br><br><a href="https://openid.pbworks.com/Identifier-and-Discovery-2_1-Questions" target="_blank">https://openid.pbworks.com/Identifier-and-Discovery-2_1-Questions</a><br><br>Also, please note that I'm not authoritative about the questions. Feel free<br> to embed your own claim into the wiki page (though I tried to be fair in the<br>framing of the questions).<br><br>David<br><br>On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Santosh Rajan <<a href="mailto:santrajan@gmail.com" target="_blank">santrajan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> <br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Dirk Balfanz <<a href="mailto:balfanz@google.com" target="_blank">balfanz@google.com</a>> wrote:<br> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I Webfinger gives you everything you need. The OpenID community just needs<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">to decide whether the email-like identifiers falling out of webfinger are<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">acceptable OpenIDs.<br></blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think you have a raised a very valid issue here. I didn't realize that<br> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite">first time round. You are right. I don't see any point in continuing with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the email issue without a clear answer to this question.<br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">general mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank">general@openid.net</a><br> </blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <br></blockquote></span><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br> general mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>