[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Auth]Re: DotGNU reference

From: S11001001
Subject: Re: [Auth]Re: DotGNU reference
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:38:27 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020812

Albert Scherbinsky wrote:
S11001001 wrote:

Adam Theo wrote:

I found this refernce to DotGNU, specifically its Virtual Identities

I think they got it wrong, though. They are saying DotGNU's Single
Sign-On mechanism (does it have one yet?) is a third-party security
service like Passport and XNS. In other words a centralized service that
manages all assertions for everyone. This is in contrast to the Liberty
Alliance way of a group (or federation) of organizations that get
together and share between each other, after forming bonds of trust.

Well, "third party security service" is not necessarily centralized, and
does include LA. The only difference between LA and Passport et al is
that LA is multi-vendor. However, "DotGNU security service" is only an
interoperability & outside interface standard.

Although you are right about LA being multivendor, Jon is
right about LibertyAlliance not requiring a third party
Identity Provider. It is true, LA can be used as a third

That's why I switched this to the [auth] list, because subscribers would likely be more informed than I. :)

party Identity Provider, although not necessarily so.
Service Providers can act as their own identity providers,
eliminating the third party.  He may very well be mistaken
about DotGNU, and you might want to send him an e-mail
correcting him. Although trashing him in this public forum
was likely more satisfying. :)

I had this thought, but could not find an email address for him. So my best hope was to post and hope that he would google himself one day.

Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' --

Back the everybody was arguing about God being dead or alive. "Impeach
God" approached the subject of God from a completely different
viewpoint. If God was so powerful as to create the world and yet do
nothing to correct the problems in it, why would we ever want to
worship such a God? Wouldn't it be better to put him on trial?
        -- RMS

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]