Draft OpenID v.Next Discovery working group charter

[Dave CROCKER]

On 5/11/2010 8:12 AM, SitG Admin wrote:
>> Then you had better also design it not to use IP or TCP or any other
>> Internet Standard.
>
> Not all of them are centralized . . . also, note focus on "MOST
> centralized".

This has become sufficiently abstract that I now have no idea what problem you 
are trying to solve nor how you are proposing to solve it.


>> As for 'centralized', perhaps you might like to review the design and
>> operation of the DNS in a bit deeper detail.
>
> I'm familiar with it. I know it's distributed; I don't see that as
> relevant.

You cited a concern for its being centralized.  I'm merely noting that it's not.


>> Exactly. Designing one new thing to rely on another, unspecified new
>> thing doesn't work. There's plenty of experience with this problem.
>
> I'm sure that a PHP plugin which lets arbitrary sockets connect with
> Tor, without having a separate Tor daemon running, would *not* rely on
> OpenID - it would just be awfully *useful* for it :)

Plug-in?  I thought the discussion was about Internet architecture and 
protocols, not software modules.


>> <http://bbiw.net/ietf/ietf-stds.html#StdWay30>
>
> Beautifully expressed, thank you for articulating *everything that I
> have been trying to tell you* :)

Cleverness often gets in the way of constructive dialogue.

You seemed to have missed the point of the text I cited, which rather explicitly 
argues against your desire to support unspecified future features.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net