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
