Re: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

[Mark Baker]

Hi Gabe,

On 2/28/07, Gabe Wachob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Basically, the Discovery Spec would specify that for any identifier scheme
 to work with OpenID, it MUST define a way of being constructed into an HTTP
 URI and then returning a XRDS with an HTTP GET on that HTTP URI.

I don't understand that.  Why shouldn't, say, an ftp URI be usable as
an ftp URI instead of converted to an http URI?

My bigger concern though, is that such a mapping would be a case of
URI space squatting.

http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSpaceSquatting

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Re: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

[Mark Baker]

On 3/2/07, Gabe Wachob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi Mark-
 I think I understand your first point. I think FTP is a degenerate
 case though, because its just like HTTP in the sense that there's basically
 one way that everybody knows how to use an FTP URI to get at a *document*
 (e.g. the FTP protocol) -- in that way, its just like HTTP. Besides, nobody
 has a reason to use FTP URIs (though I'm sure someone will show me why I'm
 wrong!)

Sure, but ftp was just an example.  There might be any number of new,
useful URI schemes deployed in the future which become easily
dereferenceable.

 As for URI squatting, I'm just not seeing the connection here. Who's
 squatting here on what URI space?

Time for an example I suppose ...

I own markbaker.ca., and publish http URIs in that namespace.  I might
(I don't) also have email addresses there, say [EMAIL PROTECTED]  If
a public standard were crafted which defined a mapping for
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to something under http://markbaker.ca (say,
http://markbaker.ca/~mark), then by virtue of minting a new
markbaker.ca email address, the corresponding http URI is now
effectively reserved, and unavailable for me to use as anything other
than an alias.

There's also existing namespaces to consider, as such a mapping spec
would be affecting all existing published URIs, not just new ones.
What if I already had both http://markbaker.ca/~foobar and
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], but both were unrelated?

It's not squatting in the sense of a person other than me reserving
a name in my own space - at least not if the mapping is done to
prevent that from happening (which won't be trivial for schemes which
don't use the DNS).  But it's squatting in the sense that some
external force (the mapping spec) prevents me from using my namespace
the way I want.

I suggest just saying that any URI can be used, and let the
community/market decide what actually gets used.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs