Shade, is there specific language that you would like in the charter?
I *would* like to see OpenID open to more than one discovery mechanism; you already have this outlined in the charter ("or family of discovery specifications").
The point Phillip made (that drew my attention to this thread) was about DNS support for fitting into the internet architecture, but other discovery methods being "in addition to" DNS; since DNS has been supporting the browser redirects OpenID uses for discovery so far (not RP's discovering OP's, but users aren't redirected to an IP address), it seems to be that the charter directs its WG to come up with a viable alternative to DNS.
Is the non-goal of v2.0 compatibility an abdication to another WG, or is OpenID v.Next intended to be a complete replacement for OpenID v2.0?
I think that requiring IDP's to be able to adjust (and, requisitely, *have*) SRV records restricts ordinary users from being able to create/control their own URI endpoints; if the user is to have any power in this regard, *they* should be able to declare that their IDP is reliable enough *for them*. Not trusting it would be RP's choice, not a restriction of the spec.
I do not want to see OpenID reliant upon the centralized DNS system. If it bootstraps from there and then switches to Web of Trust, ambivalence; if it can try alternate DNS systems (*cough* Tor) instead / alternatively / in parallel, happiness. I would conditionally extend that, *if* DNS support is written into the charter, I would like it to be treated no differently from other discovery methods.
-Shade _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
