User @ domain.tld as ID (Once again)

[Christopher E. Granade]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard 'toast' Russo wrote:
> Not necessarily to you in particular, but what is with everyone's
> hangup on user at host?
> 
> 1) Even with some magic mapping function, it's just never going to
> work for everyone.  Period.
> 
> 2) People aren't comfortable using email addresses as identifiers. 
> This is why you can set a username everywhere, even if they require
> an email address for registration.
> 
> 3) What's a cooler identifier: russor at openid.enslaves.us or
> openid.enslaves.us?  People use vanity domains for this, and
> requiring a user@ in front of the domain could reduce the coolness of
> the identifier.  (yes openid.enslaves.us gets cannonicallized into
> http://openid.enslaves.us/, and i could have openid at enslaves.us
> instead... but that's particular to this vanity domain... if i had
> the domain iamtoa.st ... i sure wouldn't want to put a user@ in front
> of it... and i can't just do iam at toa.st, because toa.st is taken)
> 
I think that you miss his point, though it could just as well be me
missing points around here. Anyway, in response to point (1), no one
said it /had/ to that I've seen. Just that it /could/ be an option (not
should be). As far as point (2) goes, that's valid, but as per my
response to (1), don't use that format if you don't want to. (3) seems
to be a bit spurious, as "coolness" is not an objective standard that
can really be used in developing an open protocol. Again, if you want a
cool URL, then use one.

I think that user at domain would be cool (scratch that- I said cool isn't
a good measure, haven't I? OK, it would be desirable), but my concern is
that it would lead to feature bloat, and require a more heavyweight
client, consumer and identity. Why do I think it would be cool
(desirable)? I am tired of having so many different IDs for completely
arbitrary reasons, and if I could have an OID that's the same as my
e-mail addr., XMPP ID, and local user name, I'd be happy. Not that I'm
anywhere close, as I've alluded to elsewhere in the thread, but any step
closer is appreciated. As I've said, though, I feel that the cost may
well outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, there are higher priorities
ahead even if it was found to be worth it.

- --Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDadha0dXuuZr00J4RArLXAKCrBEnFJwxlJO2+DzSg5IOSGWoySgCgl7Le
JJ8DkXKHbys8gL59p9f+USs=
=W2iJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----