I don't either.

One of my contemporaries at Oxford just became Prime Minister. I doubt
he would have been much better or worse if he was five years younger
or fifteen years older.


On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see what age has anything to do with technical discussions (which is
> what this list is meant for).
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You know something, "James A Michener" once said "All men above forty are
> stupid". Let me admit that I turned 50 in the month of march 2010.
> How old are you "Phillip Hallam-Baker"?
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> To me the reason the problem goes beyond simply authentication +
>> attributes is that we are providing a resolution mechanism for Web
>> 'principals' identified through consistent, machine readable, human
>> friendly identifiers.
>>
>> So 'Phillip Hallam-Baker' is not a useful identifier in this case as
>> even though this example is unique, the class of identifiers it is a
>> member of are not unique and thus not useful as machine readable
>> identifiers. Contrawise any identifier of the form '=292rj239e!' might
>> be machine readable in the right circumstances but certainly isn't
>> human friendly.
>>
>>
>> A principal here is most often going to be a Web User but could in
>> certain circumstances be a computer process or agent running on a
>> machine or could be some abstract corporate entity.
>>
>> A principal may be an individual or may be an individual acting in a
>> specific role. So [email protected] and [email protected] might be the
>> exact same person but respond differently due to the fact that in one
>> role he may be acting in a corporate capacity.
>>
>> A principal might even by a physical location such as a building.
>> malden#friendlies.com might be the Friendlies restaurant at Malden.
>>
>>
>> A resolution of a principal may mean:
>>
>> * Authenticating an interaction with the principal
>>   * An email message
>>   * A log in attempt
>>   * A permission that has been granted by Principal A to Principal B
>> * Initiating an interaction with the principal
>>   * An email message
>>   * An instant message
>> * Making a reference to the principal
>>   * Asserting that the principal initiated a communication
>>   * Asserting that the principal has a property
>>   * Asserting that principal A is the source of assertion B
>> concerning principal C
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, SitG Admin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> My view is that we should stop talking about 'identity' all together.
>> >> We should instead define the range of problems we want to solve as use
>> >> cases and go solve them. Identity is too much of an abstraction, it
>> >> can stand for anything.
>> >
>> > +1 to targeting problems rather than ideals (at that layer).
>> >
>> > The abstraction (of identity) is this community's strength and weakness;
>> > it
>> > names the Purpose that brings everyone together, and it calls in people
>> > from
>> > all over who may be able to contribute something. This concentration of
>> > diverse ideas, though, doesn't create a single harmonious overlap of
>> > equally
>> > distributed strength; there are outliers, ideas that aren't shared much
>> > by
>> > others here. The two are opposite sides of the same coin.
>> >
>> > To restate this in a slightly different way, it's a popularity contest:
>> > none
>> > of us can decide what idea will see the most adoption, since none of us
>> > can
>> > make those decisions for everyone else. Nearly any idea is probably
>> > going to
>> > be seen as a bad one by *some* person in the group (Santosh helps make
>> > statistics come *true*!), and we should each be prepared to occasionally
>> > bite the bullet and accept that it's *our* turn to be left out in the
>> > cold.
>> > (Then leave our unpopular ideas behind and come in for a warm meal and
>> > whatever work has got so many members of the community in the commons
>> > house.)
>> >
>> > -Shade
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to