Josh, On 30-May-07, at 1:28 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
> Providers can also provide a redirect from the general form of the > identifier to the current version of the identifier so that users do > not need to remember or type the uniquified version. This is pretty > much equivalent to the fragment scheme, except: > > * It does not require spec changes (and is backwards-compatible!) > > * The uniquifying component is user-visible > > I'd like to hear opinions on whether this unique-URL solution is good > enough to solve the problem. If Dick's original assessment on the requirements is right: > Motivating use case: > For large OPs, user identifier namespace is a scarce resource and > they need to be able to recycle human readable identifiers > > Design Considerations: > > + Existing identifiers continue to work > + A human readable, memorable identifier can be entered by the user > and displayed to other users > + A globally unique identifier is user by RPs that is different for > different users of the same human readable identifier ... by pushing the uniquifying part into the displayed URL the displayed identifiers become unfriendly / human-unreadable. It would be great the ones who consider identifier recycling a show stopper agreed that your proposal is good enough. Johnny _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
