>> John Merrells had mused:
>>> I don't think that we need a protocol to interoperate with other
>>> protocols. I think we need one protocol.
> Jeff Hodges replied:
>> You're dreaming. Those horses are out of the barn and off in the next
>> state.
Suresh Venkatraman opined:
> IMO, the horses are a bunch of disconnected islands spread across the
> internet. It sure would be nice to have a single system that wasn't
> controlled by one company to connect the islands.
So, yes, my point is that for whatever reason there is an extant plethora of
identity-asserting protocols, and they aren't simply going to dry up and blow
away because this working group is formed, and perhaps re-invents another wheel.
I think where some value could be added is pretty much what you're alluding to
above which is specifying a standard means by which one can determine which
flavor of identity-asserting system a given identifier is recognized by.
yadis.org is one such effort, fwiw.
And as PHB noted earlier on this list, another high-level aspect of this
overall identity puzzle is one of identifiers themselves.
And even with identifiers themselves, there is a fair bit of extant non-trivial
emerging deployed work, which isn't necessarily going to disappear right away.
Eg XRIs [1][2].
So I tend to think that up-leveling the discussion to be one focusing on a
meta-layer framework for identifier resolution and identity service discovery
(aka identity provider discovery) is where the value for an IETF-based effort
lies.
JeffH
[1] OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/
[2] OpenXRI
http://www.openxri.org/
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
