Re: Fallback flow for /site-meta for top level domains

[+www-talk again]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 01/12/2008, at 1:05 PM, Dirk Balfanz wrote:
>
>  I'm not quite following. How does this proposal stomp on people's
>> namespace? If they want to serve different documents on the two domains (and
>> can figure out how to do so), they can.
>>
>>  Yes, but doing it by default is forcing them to work around a special
> case. If www.example.com and example.com are really equivalent, the site
> administrator is already making that work (through a variety of means); why
> do they need this?
>
>  Also, the question isn't really whether _we_ think it's easy or not to
>> point one to the other, but whether we think that a large number of
>> registrars make it unintuitive for a large number of amateurs to do so.
>>
>>  Explain the use case; what can't they do?


Well, here is the scenario: I buy foobar.com for $3/year at cheapdomains.com.
I pay an extra dollar to have "email", which means I tell them where I want
my email forwarded. I pick dirk@foobar.com to be forwarded to dirk@gmail.com.
I pay another extra dollar per year for "web hosting", which means I get a
web interface on cheapdomains.com to create some web pages, which get served
on www.foobar.com. I set up a couple of pages there with pictures of my cats
or whatever and I am done.

I now also want to use my email address dirk@foobar.com as my OpenID
identifier [1] because I heard that that will end my having to create
ever-more accounts on the web. I am told that in order to get that to work I
need to host a page called "site-meta" on my site with some weird-looking
text in it that I don't understand. But, hey, I know how to get that served
off www.foobar.com so that's cool.

I have never heard of DNS.

Is that a use case we want to support?

Dirk.

[1] Let's assume that OpenID 3.0 and XRD 2.0 allow that and define some way
to discover OpenID endpoints from email addresses.


>
>
>  Dirk.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2008 6:56 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Absolutely not. the spec is already stomping on an authority's control
>> over its namespace quite enough, and it's easy for people to work around
>> this if their intent is for the two to be the same.
>> On 30/11/2008, at 8:55 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > (sorry for potential
>> duplicates, I'm havin...
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>