Yes, http://openid.net/rel/my_op looks better.


Nat Sakimura-2 wrote:
> 
> You do not want to state the endpoint. You only want to sate the 
> provider, IMHO.
> So, http://openid.net/rel/endpoint would not be a good naming.
> I like something in the line of
> 
> http://openid.net/rel/op etc. or more verbose version of it like:
> http://openid.net/rel/my_op etc.
> 
> =nat
> 
> Santosh Rajan wrote:
>> To make discovery easier  for an RP, I suggest we limit the RP to look 
>> for one of two resources in a users XRD.
>> 1) An OpenID Endpoint
>> 2) An OpenID Delegate.
>> If an OpenID endpoint is not available in a users XRD, the RP will 
>> next look for a delegated host. In both cases the RP is looking for a 
>> Rel value in a Link Element. So I suggest something like this for Rel 
>> values
>> 1) http://openid.net/rel/endpoint <http://openid.net/op/endpoint>
>> 2) http://openid.net <http://openid.net/op/endpoint>/rel/delegate
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>     The first XRD in my example is the "User Discovery" XRD in Dirk's
>>     post.
>>     I am talking about what to use for <rel> URI here.
>>     In XRI TC's discussion, we disccussed that it probably is not
>>     right to
>>     use the same URI for both "User Discovery" document (which defines
>>     relationship, "Relationship URI") and "Provider Discovery" (which
>>     defines the service).
>>     I suppose Dirk is using the same URI just for the lack of this
>>     "Relationship URI".
>>
>>     Also, in Dirk's example, in User Discovery, he is siting
>>     <URI>http://openid.example.com/op</URI>
>>
>>     I suppose this is somewhat misleading.
>>     I suppose it should be
>>
>>     <URI>http://example.com/#<URI>
>>
>>     (Note: I have added # to denote that it is pointing to a non
>>     information resource.
>>     As it is a non-information resource, the matching information
>>     resource has to be
>>     discovered by some other protocol, such as LRDD/site-meta.)
>>
>>     As to the Provider Discovery is concerned, there is no <Host> in
>>     the latest XRD schema.
>>     It is unified with <Subject>. How to express the "Subject Set" or
>>     entire domain is
>>     still under discussion, I believe, in site-meta discussion. The
>>     last I have seen is
>>     something like: <Subject>site-meta://example.com
>>     <http://example.com></Subject>.
>>     Personally, I do not like it. (W3C people will not either, I think.)
>>     What some XRI TC people suggested was to use something like
>>     <Subject>http://example.com/#</Subject> as in AWWW, but this is
>>     something
>>     that should be discussed in another thread.
>>
>>     What I was referring to as "not sure" was whether we need to
>>     support all types of LRDD
>>     or just one, for OpenID. I have got an opinion on that but I am
>>     intending to start
>>     yet another thread for that. (Or somebody else can do so. I am
>>     rather time constrained.)
>>
>>     I think it is a good practice to separate those threads and
>>     concentrate on one issue
>>     per thread so that we can avoid drifting discussion.
>>
>>     This thread is only about the Relationship URI.
>>
>>     =nat
>>
>>
>>
>>     Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>>     There is an article posted here related to this.
>>>     http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/09/openid-and-lrdd.html
>>>
>>>     So how does this work in the above framework?
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Nat Sakimura
>>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         So, User's XRD would have something like
>>>
>>>         <xrd id="foo">
>>>         <Subject>http://sakimura.org/nat</Subject>
>>>         <ds:Signature> ... </ds:Signature>
>>>         <link>
>>>         <rel>http://openid.net/rels/myopenid_provider</rel>
>>>         <url>http://myopenid.net/</url>
>>>         </link>
>>>         </xrd>
>>>
>>>         This is fetched during the discovery. (I am still not so sure
>>>         about
>>>         the relationship between X-XRDS-Location: header and
>>>         site_meta etc.
>>>         Are we abandoning the header model?)
>>>
>>>         Then, the RP searches for my relationship with OP through <rel>.
>>>         Once it was found, the RP goes to the url specified in the
>>>         <link> to
>>>         get the Service's XRD like:
>>>
>>>         <xrd id="baa">
>>>         <Subject>http://myopenid.net/</Subject>
>>>         <ds:Signature>...</ds:Signature>
>>>         <link>
>>>         <rel>http://openid.net/op/endpoint</rel>
>>>         <url>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0</url>
>>>         </link>
>>>         </xrd>
>>>
>>>         to find out the concrete endpoint of this authentication
>>> service.
>>>
>>>         =nat
>>>
>>>
>>>         John Bradley wrote:
>>>
>>>             Allen,
>>>
>>>             In XRD 1.0 we are moving to a link based model.
>>>
>>>             So a users XRD rather than having to specify the openID
>>>             providers service can point to an openID provider.
>>>
>>>             The URIs that we currently use describe the service not
>>>             the provider.
>>>
>>>             I think Nat is looking for a link relationship that
>>>             describes a user pointing  to a service providers XRD
>>>             rather than to the service itself.
>>>
>>>             There will be a bunch of new link types required for
>>>             various protocols.
>>>
>>>             John B.
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 2009-09-02, at 5:27 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>                 Hi Nat,
>>>
>>>                 Can you explain the problem in a bit more detail? Can
>>>                 you give an example use case?
>>>
>>>                 Thanks
>>>                 Allen
>>>
>>>
>>>                 Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>
>>>                     The second topic for OpenID 2.1
>>>
>>>                     Maybe, it should be separated to the Discovery
>>> but...
>>>
>>>                     In XRD 1.0, we need to define <Rel> type url for
>>>                     the user=OP relationship.
>>>                     What shall we use?
>>>
>>>                     Something like:
>>>
>>>                     http://specs.openid.net/rel/openid_provider#
>>>
>>>                     =nat
>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>                     specs mailing list
>>>                     [email protected]
>>>                     <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>                    
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>
>>>
>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>                 specs mailing list
>>>                 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>                 http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         specs mailing list
>>>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>         http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>>>     http://twitter.com/santoshrajan
>>>     http://www.facebook.com/santosh.rajan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> http://santrajan.blogspot.com
>> http://twitter.com/santoshrajan
>> http://www.facebook.com/santosh.rajan
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>    
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> 
> 


-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com 
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/XRD-and-OpenID-2.1-tp25252899p25298082.html
Sent from the OpenID - Specs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to