Josh Hoyt schrieb: > On 5/17/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.
+1 for leaving out XRI XRI adds too much complexity without any real benefit. Well, i-numbers _do_ provide persistence, which is something OpenID does not have. However, Relying Parties can't rely on it as most users will use HTTP-based OpenID identifiers. If persistence is a concern (and it may be for some Relying Parties), then there should be an OpenID extension for it and implementers should only have to implement said extension. Further, XRI-based OpenID identifiers only provide persistence by giving up one of the goals of OpenID: decentrality. (An OpenID extension could provide persistence and yet retain decentrality by using the public keys for asymmetric encryption as a persistent or semi-persistent token.) Of course, there's no reason why <http://xri.net/=foo> could not be a OpenID URI just like any other HTTP URI. But the complexity of having XRI-based identifiers used with OpenID should reside with the folks who run the XRI gateway (one software product), not those who implement Relying Parties (several software products). Claus _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
