An excellent comment from Chuck Mortimore to my I Cry Ubiquity entry is as follows:
While Kim’s identity metasystem supports independence from mandated adoption in the abstract, it’s implementation by his employer seems to be quite explicit in it’s mandate of support for ws-* as the encapsulating protocol. I think we should make a concerted effort not to artifically attribute characteristics of ubiquity to infocard. Microsoft really belongs in the list with the rest of us…
WS-* is not the encapsulating protocol. WS-Trust is the encapsulating protocol. What does WS-Trust do? It converts a token (in any format) into another token (in any format). You input an existing token, a request for a new token, and get back the new token. In otherwords, it is a token exchanger ñ between constituent systems.
Does SXIP have a protocol to exchange tokens from one system to those in another? Does LID? Does SAML? No. They all do their own things with their own tokens
So accusing Kim of having a protocol to do what a metasystem does is like accusing the mint of printing money
But these guys-SXIP, SAML, Liberty, OpenID, Passell etc., are simply not implementing a metasystem, despite all the good things they are doing.
Kim is not implementing a constituent system ñ he is implementing a metasystem. No one else is doing this. Thanks for helping me make my point Chuck.
