There are ways to solve B that don't really solve A. In fact, I think the only way to solve B that does not require a master directory is orthogonal to solving A.
-- Dick On 8-Jun-07, at 10:49 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote: > I would suggest that any solution to B is also very likely a > solution to A. > > Anybody disagree? > > If so, I'd suggest that we should either solve A and B at the same > time, or not at all. > > > > On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:42, Dick Hardt wrote: > >> At IIW we[1] decided we wanted to solve (A) and that (B) would be >> nice to solve, but we were ok to wait for a future version to >> resolve, as when we discussed (B), resolving looked much harder then >> it seemed at first. >> >> I'm not certain of where we are now. >> >> -- Dick >> >> [1] those present when we met about how to solve recycling ... >> >> On 8-Jun-07, at 10:35 AM, Recordon, David wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if we all think we're trying to solve the same problem. >>> The two problems that have been discussed are: >>> A) Identifier recycling normally in large user-base deployments. >>> i.e. >>> <insert big company> needs a way to give 'TheBestUsernameEver' to a >>> new >>> user if it has not been used in some period of time. >>> B) Losing control of your own domain name whether that be via >>> someone >>> stealing it or just that you don't want to have to pay for it >>> forever. >>> >>> Have we made a decision as to if we're looking for a solution to >>> solve >>> both of these problems, only A, or only B? >>> >>> --David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> specs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> specs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
