PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)

[Johannes Ernst]

On Oct 19, 2006, at 14:56, Josh Hoyt wrote:

> I'm in favor of keeping the OpenID Authentication Protocol
> specification as small as possible, with as few restrictions as
> possible to get useful behavior.

Fully agree. The genius of HTTP and RSS and mass-market protocols  
like them was not in what they included, but what they left out.  
There are some lessons that we can learn here.

> The more we can reduce the scope, the more likely it is
> that we can develop a tight, usable specification that does not hold
> anyone back and is easy to implement.

Exactly.

> There are a couple of different insights that are common to OpenID,
> SXIP, LID, and the myriad other URL-based single-sign-on solutions
> that are out there. I want to codify the things that we all agree on
> and allow innovation around the things that we do not.

Hey, Josh, what happened, you are taking the words out of my mouth  
today!! ;-)

> I do not feel strongly about this particular issue, but I do feel
> strongly that if possible, we should REDUCE the scope as much as
> possible.

Yes yes and more Yes.

> If there is a way to accomplish your goal without changing
> OpenID, then DON'T CHANGE OPENID. It's easy to put stuff in the next
> revision, but it's hard to take stuff out.
>
> OpenID has been successful because its scope was intentionally
> extremely narrow. Lets keep it that way.

Absolutely.



Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lid.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20061019/2aee1e2d/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
  http://netmesh.info/jernst