On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:01 PM, SitG Admin <[email protected]>wrote:
> It isn't decentralized (you have admitted this yourself!). >>> >>> >> So what degree of decentralization is necessary for non-brokenness in >> your philosophy? Is ICANN allowable? >> > > Again, just remember your own words: > > "Objection: The implementation relies on a single domain." > That's the objection I've heard from other people. > > This is how you are doing things RIGHT NOW. >>> >>> >>> THAT is what makes XAuth broken. >>> >>> >> So you're saying Peter's suggestion is exactly as broken? >> > > Read carefully: this is how YOU are doing things. > Best as I can tell, Peter's suggestion for doing things through browser extensions (downloaded from, say, xauth.org) has exactly the same issues with centralization as the JS based solution does. I'm not really sure what else you're implying but I'll drop it for now as it's late and I'm tired. > > Peter's replies have already covered everything else I might have said, > with notable thoroughness and elegance at that, so I will bow out for now, > with one exception: I will try to assemble a Venn diagram depicting the > XAuth concepts and where you/me/Peter reside along them. > > -Shade >
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
