John, I agree that this is probably the right decision for the AX 2.0 WG to take, but it needs to be taken by that group in what regards the attribute schemas.
This WG is probably 6+ months too late in forming. Do you agree? On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:55 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > This wouldn't cover the other things we need URI for like your XRD request. > > You might want to broaden the registration process to cover registration of > other uri for openID as well. > > John B. > > On 2009-09-17, at 9:41 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > >> I ammended http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Attribute_Exchange_Extension_2_0 >> to include the scope: >> >> "Define a lightweight registration mechanism for AX attribute type >> schemas." >> >> If you do not think this is ready for formal consideration by >> specs-council, please raise your objection here and now. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Even if we go for the big hug theory of cross protocol Attributes, We >>> will >>> still need a schemas group for PAPE, XRD tyoes etc. >>> >>> John B. >>> On 2009-09-17, at 7:30 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: >>> >>>> Glad to hear Dick back in this list. Dirk, could we immediately move >>>> to form the AX 2.0 WG (hopefully with a membership that is >>>> representative)? I believe (and not because I am a member) that the AX >>>> 2.0 WG needs to be the party addressing this issue because of the >>>> necessity of preserving some coherence within the AX spec. The WG >>>> should make a formal proposal to either move this into the umbrella of >>>> OIDF or take it out, and get the bless for spec-council for either >>>> option on a reasonable time frame. >>>> >>>> We have numerous speculative threads in this issue. At this point, the >>>> very possibility of a result (whatever it may be) appears to me as an >>>> unqualified win. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Paul Trevithick <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The only difference, e.g., between an Open AX URL attribute and an >>>>> IMI-infocard URL claim is who’s authoritative over minting it. The >>>>> question >>>>> for the OIDF is this: Are the benefits of being able to be >>>>> authoritative >>>>> over the attribute URL minting process, greater than the benefits of >>>>> letting >>>>> go of that authority and increasing interoperability in the overall >>>>> open >>>>> identity ecosystem? >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> PS: The ICF said, hey we need a place for folks using the IMI protocol >>>>> to >>>>> know where the attribute URLs are listed. So we created [1] along with >>>>> a >>>>> very light-weight email-based process for getting new URIs added. It >>>>> all >>>>> works fine. This is clearly one way to answer the above question. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://wiki.informationcard.net/index.php/Claim_Catalog >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/17/09 4:48 PM, "Allen Tom" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Given that everyone using AX seems to be using axschema.org, we should >>>>> just >>>>> bless it. Perhaps the OIDF should take over running it? We should try >>>>> to >>>>> have an official process (hopefully very lightweight) for adding new >>>>> attributes. >>>>> >>>>> +100 for making the urls shorter, since AX responses usually exceed the >>>>> 2KB >>>>> URL limit, and have to be sent via POST, causing UX issues. (browser >>>>> warnings if the RP doesn't support HTTPS, an extra "white page" with >>>>> the >>>>> form and the button, JS dependency, etc) >>>>> >>>>> Allen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dick Hardt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> axschema.org is shorter then schemas.openid.net and implies the >>>>> schemas could be used for things other then OpenID >>>>> >>>>> given that though, I don't have a strong preference >>>>> >>>>> On 2009-09-16, at 2:06 PM, John Bradley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I recall the idea was to move the URI to use schemas.openid.net. >>>>> >>>>> Is that still the preferred option from your point of view, or do >>>>> you see axshema.org continuing in some way? >>>>> >>>>> John B. >>>>> >>>>> On 2009-09-16, at 4:54 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2009-09-16, at 12:28 PM, John Bradley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dick, >>>>> >>>>> That includes all of the schema work and AX 2.0 documents? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All the work that Sxip Identity did. I don't recall that anyone else >>>>> contributed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who controls axschema.org now? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do personally >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> --Breno >>>> >>>> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk >>>> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) >>>> MTV-41-3 : 383-A >>>> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> specs mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> --Breno >> >> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk >> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) >> MTV-41-3 : 383-A >> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) > > -- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
