OpenID V.Next - Some Views to Consider

[Santosh Rajan]

+1, I am in complete agreement with your observation.

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>wrote:

> Users may not know what they want.
>
> But they sure have told us that they absolutely do not want URIs as
> user identifiers. They do not want that any more than they want fire
> that can be fitted nasally.
>
> They have also demonstrated a complete lack of interest in XRIs as
> identifiers.
>
>
> I am certainly not arguing against these positions as "nobody has ever
> tried it, so don't even bother offering". I am arguing against them on
> the basis that they were tried against my advice, that the results of
> that trial were complete failure in precisely the way that I predicted
> and that we should on absolutely no account attempt this experiment
> yet again and waste yet more time and the patience of adopters.
>
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:35 PM, SitG Admin
> <sysadmin at shadowsinthegarden.com> wrote:
> > I need to borrow your hat for a minute, Peter :)
> >
> > At 4:00 PM -0400 5/13/10, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> For thirty years Internet users have understood their user identifier
> >> to be username at domain.
> >>
> >> I see absolutely zero interest from end users in being identified in
> >> any other way. The attempts to provide them with this 'flexibility;
> >> are unwanted and unnecessary.
> >
> > Have you studied marketing much? The ideal of "ask users what they want
> and
> > give it to them" hasn't worked out perfectly, because it turns out users
> > don't always *know* what they want - especially when they aren't familiar
> > with it yet (think the Aero Chair).
> >
> > To address your assertion directly, though: you're presenting one side of
> an
> > idealogical argument, from the "status quo" - *of course* such
> flexibility
> > isn't necessary, because the only thing it offers over the necessity of
> > maintaining that status quo is change, which would be disruptive. The
> flip
> > side of this argument is that, if OpenID is to idealogically represent
> the
> > user as the centre of their own identity ("user-centric") rather than as
> a
> > wholly owned subsidiary of their patron website ("@domain", naturally
> > requiring DNS), then it has the right to help users better understand
> their
> > rights and options.
> >
> > As an idealogical argument, it works; where it falls flat is in the
> > technological arena (ideals against practical reality? really?), and I
> wish
> > you'd present more of those (backward compatibility was an *excellent*
> > point) instead of relying so much on the *implicit* perfection of a
> > long-entrenched model.
> >
> > I repeat: you made a *compelling* technical argument. It's just that
> "nobody
> > has ever tried it, so don't even bother offering" detracts from what
> you're
> > saying.
> >
> > I will make one observation - those earlier criticisms of OpenID that
> it's
> > no better than the many past (failed) attempts? If we strive to provide
> > nothing more than those other tries did, OpenID really *will* be no
> > different from them.
> >
> >> The only new mechanism is part 3
> >
> > What version of the charter's draft are you looking at? I don't see:
> >
> >> 2) The resolution protocol for the domain part of the user identifier
> >> is totally independent of any application protocol, including HTTP, it
> >> uses DNS and only DNS to resolve the DNS name.
> >
> > I don't see this mentioned *anywhere*. Has there been an update?
> >
> > -Shade takes off Peter's hat and hands it back
> > _______________________________________________
> > specs mailing list
> > specs at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>



-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100514/8c2579d8/attachment.htm>