Lots of coverage today what has and has not been announced related to the Liberty Alliance-initiated Concordia project. (David's links)

Picking up Doc Searls' term here, this article is a prime specimen of "vendor sports" — "hey, did you hear, big vendor X does Y but Z won't support it, but maybe that's just all public posture." Can't fault them for writing it, it's worthwhile to report this given that it is indeed happening, but does this kind of mud fight really need to happen?

Here is some advice if you want one if you aren't a vendor: ignore all of it. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether or not we vendors manage to make it easier, and cheaper, and better, to empower you, the customer and the user, to make use of these technologies in better ways. All of the vendor mud fights contribute absolutely nothing to this, and might well distract.

Personally, I think that the Liberty folks, led by Brett and Roger and supported by many others, have shown an extraordinary amount of effort to reach out to other camps in the last year, and that is a good thing that we should acknowledge. Concordia is one example for that, and similar good things can be said about Microsoft, the OpenID community, and many others. The point, though, is that any of this will only matter if something comes out at the other end that delivers more value to the user and the customer. And on that, the jury is still out and should be at least until everybody goes back home from the mud pit and actually does some work that might actually solve a problem.

Sorry, I'm a bit cynical this morning.