> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:13 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OpenID Hybrid v2 Proposal (formerly known OpenID Connect) > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Discussing the name is a distraction. The issue is whether the OpenID > foundation wants to be where identity work is done, or where the OpenID > protocol (and nothing else) is done. Again, the question is very simple: OAuth > is going to have an identity layer (that's a done deal) - do you want to work > on it here under the OpenID foundation or not? > > > It's not that entirely that simple. There are apparently other (different but > with some commonality?) ideas for a next phase of OpenID activity, the > v.Next stuff. So the Foundation also needs to decide whether to do both in > parallel and let 'the market' decide, whether to map out some > dependencies, shared technology components or even try for a common > design, or whether to say "thanks but no thanks" > to one of the proposals. It also needs to decide how much of that deciding to > do up front (in the board) versus in chartered working group(s). > > Framing this bluntly as a 'take it or leave it' ultimatum looks (to a relative > outsider) a little brutal, but I say that cautiously as I've not been party > to any > of the backstory or detailed debates.
Reality is that simple. What to do about it might not be, but it's not like there is a new flow of information coming. It's nice to want coherence in the marketplace but that's not going to happen. There are going to be competing solutions and there are going to be critics of each. At the end the market is the only place where a decision between these two solutions can happen. EHL _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
