David, just want to reinforce that the CanonicalID element in XRDS has
always been defined as containing anyURI, so it's been there to support
mapping of any reassignable identifier to any persistent identifier (or,
technically, any canonical identifier, even if not persistent, though
persistence is the main use case for it).
I'm happy to help with the writeup -- I've already spent a not-insignificant
portion of my lifespan dealing with this issue ;-)
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Recordon, David
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:50 PM
To: Johnny Bufu
Cc: OpenID specs list
Subject: RE: The WordPress User Problem (WAS: RE: Specifying
identifierrecycling)
At that point I'd be concerned as to solving the big OP issue while
not solving the lost domain issue when some of the proposals could
possible solve both. This largely focuses around using an XRI-style
canonical id, whether that be an i-number or just another ugly URL
which points back at the pretty one. I know I need to write this up
more...
--David
-Original Message-
From: Johnny Bufu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:18 PM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: Josh Hoyt; Johannes Ernst; OpenID specs list
Subject: Re: The WordPress User Problem (WAS: RE: Specifying
identifier recycling)
On 5-Jun-07, at 11:58 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
The relying parties SHOULD make the fragment available to software
agents, at least, so that it's possible to compare identifiers across
sites. If the fragment is never available, then there is confusion
about which user of an identifier is responsible for content that has
been posted. One use case where software agents having access to the
fragment is particularly important is if the identifier is used for
access control, and the access control list is retrieved from off-site
(e.g. from a social networking site).
The implementation that seems most sane is for places that display the
identifier for human reading look like:
a href=http://josh.example.com/#this-is-intended-for-machine-
consumption
http://josh.example.com//a
so that the software agent would see the fragment, but the user
wouldn't have to.
On 5-Jun-07, at 2:55 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
I thought the fragment was to be secret so that for the case of using
a personal domain you don't have to own joshhoyt.com forever. Rather
as long as your fragments are secret, someone else can buy
joshhoyt.com and not be you. If this is no longer a requirement then
it certainly changes the game, though also doesn't solve one of the
other aspects of identifier recycling.
I thought so too, but I believe Josh is right - the lost domain
cell with an X in it (for URL + public fragment) supports Josh's
statement:
http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/IIW2007a/Identifier_Recycling
So if we're not dealing with this use case, it becomes actually simpler
to address just the identifier recycling for big OPs, where loosing the
domain is not an issue.
Johnny
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
