Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

[Gabe Wachob]

OK, I see what you are saying.

To be clear, what I was proposing was more like what we are doing with XRi -
xri.net or any XRI proxy you configure locally (e.g. http://xri.net/=GabeW
or http://xri.mydomain.com/=GabeW). The domain is not dependent on the
identifier - so in the email example, id we have user at foo.com - the proposal
would be http://yourlocalopenidproxy.com/user@foo.com (do we have to escape
the @? I'd have to go check), not something like http://foo.com/user
(although that was someone else's proposal). 

I'm just trying to suggest some uniformity or at least guidance for people
wanting to use new schemes with OpenID. So far, nobody seems to think its
needed? 

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mbaker at gmail.com [mailto:mbaker at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:26 PM
> To: Gabe Wachob
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: Re: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery
> 
> On 3/2/07, Gabe Wachob <gabe.wachob at amsoft.net> wrote:
> > Hi Mark-
> >         I think I understand your first point. I think FTP is a
> degenerate
> > case though, because its just like HTTP in the sense that there's
> basically
> > one way that everybody knows how to use an FTP URI to get at a
> *document*
> > (e.g. the FTP protocol) -- in that way, its just like HTTP. Besides,
> nobody
> > has a reason to use FTP URIs (though I'm sure someone will show me why
> I'm
> > wrong!)
> 
> Sure, but ftp was just an example.  There might be any number of new,
> useful URI schemes deployed in the future which become easily
> dereferenceable.
> 
> >         As for URI squatting, I'm just not seeing the connection here.
> Who's
> > squatting here on what URI space?
> 
> Time for an example I suppose ...
> 
> I own markbaker.ca., and publish http URIs in that namespace.  I might
> (I don't) also have email addresses there, say mark at markbaker.ca.  If
> a public standard were crafted which defined a mapping for
> mailto:mark at markbaker.ca to something under http://markbaker.ca (say,
> http://markbaker.ca/~mark), then by virtue of minting a new
> markbaker.ca email address, the corresponding http URI is now
> effectively reserved, and unavailable for me to use as anything other
> than an alias.
> 
> There's also existing namespaces to consider, as such a mapping spec
> would be affecting all existing published URIs, not just new ones.
> What if I already had both http://markbaker.ca/~foobar and
> mailto:foobar at markbaker.ca, but both were unrelated?
> 
> It's not "squatting" in the sense of a person other than me reserving
> a name in my own space - at least not if the mapping is done to
> prevent that from happening (which won't be trivial for schemes which
> don't use the DNS).  But it's squatting in the sense that some
> external force (the mapping spec) prevents me from using my namespace
> the way I want.
> 
> I suggest just saying that any URI can be used, and let the
> community/market decide what actually gets used.
> 
> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com