RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification
David, See, here's the problem. When I'm saying "productive conversations", I usually mean they yield something. Getting no replies or replies such as "it should be done the way that it's intended" is counterproductive. Everybody who finds my questions/suggestions stupid, please speak up. Regards, Dmitry =damnian ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification
Hi Dmitry, I don't think the solution is to "simple denounce OpenID 2.0", but that will rather only make it worse. Rather I'd invite you to continue these productive conversations to see if the issues can be resolved. I think it would be unfortunate for anyone to just give up. --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dmitry Shechtman Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:09 AM To: 'Don MacAskill'; 'OpenID specs list' Subject: RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification > As a relative newcomer to the OpenID community, I realize this may > have been debated endlessly already, and I may just be shouted down. It definitely has been debated endlessly. > Or am I alone here? No, you aren't. There are many who agree with this entirely, some of whom have expressed their opinion on the various OpenID lists, but at no avail. My suggestion at this point would be to simply denounce OpenID 2.0. Regards, Dmitry =damnian ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification
I'm in support of doing this. --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh Hoyt Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:40 PM To: Dmitry Shechtman Cc: OpenID specs list Subject: Re: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "aside from XRI and Yadis"? XRI alone is twice as complex as OpenID 1.1! > > There has been a simplification suggestion floating around since long ago: > resolve i-names via http[s]://xri.net/. -1. If XRI is to be included, it should be done the way that it's intended. One possible solution that would address this problem as well as the unfinished XRI specification is to split out Yadis and XRI discovery out from the OpenID Authentication spec and into separate documents. That way, they could wait until the XRI specs are done and the OpenID spec will be shorter and easier to understand. Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID 2.0Authenticationspecification
BTW, we (the XRI TC cochairs) finally (!) came to agreement at IIW to publish the current draft of the XRI Res spec as a citeable committee spec so the issue about XRI specs being in draft form and unciteable goes away. That is, we'll hold a TC vote on what has already been implemented by the openid community and call it XRI resolution 2.0 (which has been relatively stable, but not final, for a long time already). XRI Syntax 2.0 has been a committee spec for a long time now and has not changed. The agreement was, essentially, to output res 2.0 wd 11 (or thereabouts) as a committee spec rather than wait for further work on XRI. We've not formally presented this to the TC, but I am almost certain the TC will agree to this. It is my expectation that we'll complete this in roughly the same timeframe as the other work being completed in OpenID 2.0 (that is, on the order of weeks). -Gabe > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Josh Hoyt > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:40 PM > To: Dmitry Shechtman > Cc: OpenID specs list > Subject: Re: RFC: Final outstanding issues with the OpenID > 2.0Authenticationspecification > > On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "aside from XRI and Yadis"? XRI alone is twice as complex as OpenID 1.1! > > > > There has been a simplification suggestion floating around since long > ago: > > resolve i-names via http[s]://xri.net/. > > -1. If XRI is to be included, it should be done the way that it's > intended. One possible solution that would address this problem as > well as the unfinished XRI specification is to split out Yadis and XRI > discovery out from the OpenID Authentication spec and into separate > documents. That way, they could wait until the XRI specs are done and > the OpenID spec will be shorter and easier to understand. > > Josh > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
