You just summarized the last post (as of now - sans the summary post) of the thread you're referring to - or you can just look at the last line of the summary post :-)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Joe Cascio, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to hear some discussion on a related topic, which is ID > proliferation. I would think Chris Messina might have something to say on > the topic, being involved in the DISO project. In addition to the problem of > having more than one person having "@susan" there is a growing problem of a > single Susan being [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. > > I'm bothered by the fact that most discussion seems to assume that identity > is merely a projection of XMPP's ID mechanism. Wouldn't it be better to have > someone's OpenID meta-data provide a discovery mechanism for any of several > servers that they might be contacted on? Then the XMPP address/identity > would be a lower level routing, perhaps invisible to the end user? > > This surely doesn't solve the SMS problem, which is due to the fact that > simply more characters are needed to create globally unique addresses, but > I'd like to make one observation about short (domain-specific) vs. long > (domain-independent) names. > > In the set of all people that I talk to, on Twitter, email, or IM, I have a > hard time coming up with any two that have the same local short name. Yes, > there are multiple JoeCascios out there, but I don't think any of my online > contacts know them. Ok, so my name is fairly uncommon. What about a > JohnSmith? How many JohnSmiths do you know? Couldn't potential conflicts be > handled by a personal nickname? The globally unique low level id could be > mapped to my own local short alias for that person. The default short alias > is their own defined short name, but I could override that to let me > distinguish messages arriving at my device. > > JoeC >
