I don't see how it requires a centralized registry, if I choose to trust that LiveJournal, or some ugly URL from AOL, etc will never go away then that is my choice.
--David -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt Sent: Friday, June 08, 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; 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 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 hard problem. However Canonical IDs > solve B > if the identifier authority for the Canonical ID follows business and > operational practices intended to solve B. And I think there is a solution that does not require a single, central registry. One of the other issues with the registry is it is challenging to provide directed identities. -- Dick _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs