Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 6/11/07, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presumably the recommendation would be to have several identifiers
attached to a single account just as is recommended today. I would point
most of my identifiers at one canonical identifier but retain one or
more special
On 6/8/07, David Fuelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 I understand the way that David Recordon and Drummond are proposing
that canonical identifiers
On 6/11/07, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/8/07, David Fuelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 I understand the way that David Recordon and
I'm not sure if we all think we're trying to solve the same problem.
The two problems that have been discussed are:
A) Identifier recycling normally in large user-base deployments. i.e.
insert big company needs a way to give 'TheBestUsernameEver' to a new
user if it has not been used in some
Cc: Recordon, David; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
I would suggest that any solution to B is also very likely a solution
to A.
Anybody disagree?
If so, I'd suggest that we should either solve A and B at the same
time, or not at all.
On Jun
There are ways to solve B that don't really solve A.
In fact, I think the only way to solve B that does not require a
master directory is orthogonal to solving A.
-- Dick
On 8-Jun-07, at 10:49 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
I would suggest that any solution to B is also very likely a
solution
At IIW we[1] decided we wanted to solve (A) and that (B) would be
nice to solve, but we were ok to wait for a future version to
resolve, as when we discussed (B), resolving looked much harder then
it seemed at first.
I'm not certain of where we are now.
-- Dick
[1] those present when we
I would suggest that any solution to B is also very likely a solution
to A.
Anybody disagree?
If so, I'd suggest that we should either solve A and B at the same
time, or not at all.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:42, Dick Hardt wrote:
At IIW we[1] decided we wanted to solve (A) and that (B)
Such as?
On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:55, Dick Hardt wrote:
There are ways to solve B that don't really solve A.
In fact, I think the only way to solve B that does not require a
master directory is orthogonal to solving A.
-- Dick
On 8-Jun-07, at 10:49 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
I would
Multiple, redundant identifiers solves B without requiring a master
directory.
On 8-Jun-07, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
Such as?
On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:55, Dick Hardt wrote:
There are ways to solve B that don't really solve A.
In fact, I think the only way to solve B that does not
And then vote by majority?
Be safer the more distinct OpenIDs you own and make globally
correlatable?
While I don't particularly like this approach (and I understand you
are not proposing it to solve B), come to think of it, I would think
this would also address A -- no worse than what it
Of Dick Hardt
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Johannes Ernst
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
Multiple, redundant identifiers solves B without requiring a master
directory.
On 8-Jun-07, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:
Such as?
On Jun
On 8-Jun-07, at 2:29 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
provides. It
doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID
itself,
i.e., it simply provides a way to map a reassignable URL or XRI to a
persistent URL or XRI.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 14:41, Dick Hardt wrote:
Canonical IDs do not solve B.
I would agree with that one.
Obviously the XRI architecture assumption (not as radically
decentralized as OpenID) makes that less of a problem in an XRI
context. Of course, some would say that that assumption is a
Dick Hardt wrote:
Canonical IDs do not solve B.
I would agree with that one.
Obviously the XRI architecture assumption (not as radically
decentralized as OpenID) makes that less of a problem in an XRI
context. Of course, some would say that that assumption is a problem
in itself.
, 2007 4:08 PM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
On 8-Jun-07, at 4:00 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
Drummond Reed wrote:
Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
provides. It
doesn't require a master directory
On 8-Jun-07, at 4:21 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
Dick Hardt wrote:
The persistent URL or XRI *is* a master directory. What do you do
when the persistent identifier is compromised, goes out of
business ...
That is problem B.
Canonical IDs do not solve B.
I completely agree that B is a
Drummond Reed wrote:
Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
provides. It
doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID
itself,
i.e., it simply provides a way to map a reassignable URL or XRI to a
persistent URL or XRI.
Dick Hardt wrote:
The
Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
On 8-Jun-07, at 4:00 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
Drummond Reed wrote:
Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
provides. It
doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID
itself,
i.e., it simply provides
PM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?
On 8-Jun-07, at 4:00 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
Drummond Reed wrote:
Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping
provides. It
doesn't require a master directory; it's
Re-reading what I wrote, I realize that what I said makes no sense
after the first sentence. Thanks, Drummond, for keeping me honest.
There was a point I was trying to make which I botched, and which is
also unimportant in this thread. So never mind ... ;-) Sorry.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 16:16,
21 matches
Mail list logo
