W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-federatedsocialweb@w3.org > October 2011

Re: OpenID Connect Discovery not Webfinger based?

From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:38:33 +0200
To: public-xg-federatedsocialweb <public-xg-federatedsocialweb@w3.org>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net
Message-Id: <1319228298-sup-8798@elfbook>
Hello Everyone,

I don't have much xp with such cross mailing list + individuals conversations so I warmly welcome any suggestion of using To, Cc, threading and quotes in smarter way, some relevant ones related to thread I have started here:

Excerpts from Eran Hammer-Lahav's message of 2011-10-21 22:12:18 +0200:
> I'm trying to avoid getting re-engaged in this conversation all over again. SWD is mostly a duplicated effort for host-meta, especially now that host-meta supports a simple JSON structure. The OpenID Connect effort is largely a waste of time because the market has moved on from that and I can't see any large providers investing much in it without FB or Twitter using it.
> I am happy to give my 5c but am not looking to get invested in this. Happy to join a conf call or answer a few questions via email.

Excerpts from Michiel de Jong's message of 2011-10-21 14:57:51 +0200:
> ok, so the big difference between webfinger and swd is that webfinger is
> always the same static file, depending only on the username, and swd can
> answer specific entries. i can see now how there can be situations where you
> want to control access per-entry, and why swd might then be the only valid
> choice.

I would really like to discuss it with people interested in this Webfinger vs. SWD issue!
Maybe we could try to organize a teleconf to clarify few things about it?

~ elf Pavlik ~
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 20:41:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:47:51 UTC