On 5/11/2010 8:12 AM, SitG Admin wrote:
Then you had better also design it not to use IP or TCP or any other
Internet Standard.
Not all of them are centralized . . . also, note focus on "MOST
centralized".
This has become sufficiently abstract that I now have no idea what problem you
are trying to solve nor how you are proposing to solve it.
As for 'centralized', perhaps you might like to review the design and
operation of the DNS in a bit deeper detail.
I'm familiar with it. I know it's distributed; I don't see that as
relevant.
You cited a concern for its being centralized. I'm merely noting that it's not.
Exactly. Designing one new thing to rely on another, unspecified new
thing doesn't work. There's plenty of experience with this problem.
I'm sure that a PHP plugin which lets arbitrary sockets connect with
Tor, without having a separate Tor daemon running, would *not* rely on
OpenID - it would just be awfully *useful* for it :)
Plug-in? I thought the discussion was about Internet architecture and
protocols, not software modules.
<http://bbiw.net/ietf/ietf-stds.html#StdWay30>
Beautifully expressed, thank you for articulating *everything that I
have been trying to tell you* :)
Cleverness often gets in the way of constructive dialogue.
You seemed to have missed the point of the text I cited, which rather explicitly
argues against your desire to support unspecified future features.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
