Assuming I understand things correctly, it seems like what we're calling a canonical URL in this thread is really a pseudo-canonical URL since a given OpenID's XRDS doc is what specifies the Canonical ID.<br><br>If in 50 years, a given canonical URL domain goes away, then couldn't a given OpenId URL owner simply specify a new Canonical URL in his XRDS doc? If so, then It seems like there's almost a (in a good way) circular reference going on, since at certain points in time, what we're calling the "Canonical URL" is the unchanging/stable/authoritative URL, while at other times, the actual OpenID is the authoritative/unchanging/stable URL.
<br><br>In this setup, I a given person has to control 2 URL's at the same time in order to assert ownership of a given OpenID, making it difficult to lose your Identity if you lose only a single domain. In this respect, each URL provides a safeguard against the loss of the other URL.
<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/8/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dick Hardt</b> <<a href="mailto:dick@sxip.com">dick@sxip.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
You are still trusting one registry. Of course it is your choice, but<br>you have a single point of failure. Do you think they will still be<br>around in 50 years?<br><br>On 8-Jun-07, at 4:20 PM, Recordon, David wrote:<br>
<br>> I don't see how it requires a centralized registry, if I choose to<br>> trust<br>> that LiveJournal, or some ugly URL from AOL, etc will never go away<br>> then<br>> that is my choice.<br>><br>
> --David<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net">specs-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net">specs-bounces@openid.net</a>] On
<br>> Behalf Of Dick Hardt<br>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:08 PM<br>> To: Drummond Reed<br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>> Subject: Re: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
<br>><br>><br>> On 8-Jun-07, at 4:00 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>>>> Drummond Reed wrote:<br>>>>><br>>>>> Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
<br>>>>> provides. It<br>>>>> doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID<br>>>>> itself,<br>>>>> i.e., it simply provides a way to map a reassignable URL or XRI
<br>>>>> to a<br>>>>> persistent URL or XRI.<br>>>><br>>>> Dick Hardt wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> The persistent URL or XRI *is* a master directory. What do you do<br>>>> when the persistent identifier is compromised, goes out of
<br>>>> business ...<br>>>><br>>>> That is problem B.<br>>>><br>>>> Canonical IDs do not solve B.<br>>><br>>> I completely agree that B is a hard problem. However Canonical IDs
<br>>> solve B<br>>> if the identifier authority for the Canonical ID follows business and<br>>> operational practices intended to solve B.<br>><br>> And I think there is a solution that does not require a single,
<br>> central registry.<br>><br>> One of the other issues with the registry is it is challenging to<br>> provide directed identities.<br>><br>> -- Dick<br>><br>> _______________________________________________
<br>> specs mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>><br>><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>specs mailing list<br><a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a><br><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br></blockquote></div><br>