<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">David,<div><br></div><div>I tried to vote but RPX and Jyte seems to have some issue with me :)</div><div><br></div><div>One option that should be discussed is abstracting all identifiers out of the core spec.</div><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><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><br></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><br></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><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">general-request@openid.net</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-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">sappenin@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: [OpenID] Community Opinion on OID 2.1 Discovery and<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>Identifiers...<br>To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>Message-ID:<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><<a href="mailto:51dae84d0906051151i24578169l2595c9d4e291bb1d@mail.gmail.com">51dae84d0906051151i24578169l2595c9d4e291bb1d@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br><span class="Apple-tab-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">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">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">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">general@openid.net</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>