I'm not understanding what you are describing.
I've failed to answer your question, then - sorry I couldn't be of
more help here.
I'm still in favor of OpenID not relying on the singularly
centralized DNS, since OpenID can only be as "decentralized" as its
*most* centralized component. (Unless there are alternatives which
can replace them.)
I'm quite sure you are describing a non-existent capability.
I'm quite sure that *OpenID v.Next* is still non-existent ;p
Making current designs attempt to cover unspecified hypothetical
extensions is typically not successful in these efforts.
It's the chicken-and-egg dilemma: forward-compatibility. See:
http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/2009-November/019470.html
OpenID is an authentication encapsulation protocol, *intended* to be
extensible. Does it actively *hamper* OpenID to remain open to the
possibility of future developments in an area of interest?
It wouldn't take much. If you read through the discussion from
earlier, you'll see that the key question (to me) was whether plugins
could be accepted (and officially approved) before OpenID v.Next+1;
if the Working Group documents its approval criteria as they're
working out the spec, creating such a process would be trivial, and
waiting for OpenID v4.0 wouldn't be mandatory.
-Shade
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
