On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:30:06AM +0100, Chris Obdam wrote: > There already is work done on that part right? > > See > http://step2.googlecode.com/svn/spec/attribute_exchange_validate/trunk/openid-attribute-exchange-validate-mode.html
Thanks for that pointer. I see two big problems with that draft 1) As Allen's later email suggested, it could be very useful to know *when* an attribute was verified. This is probably true of every single attribute. Of the standard (http://www.axschema.org/types/) and experimental attributes, only date of birth is an immutable fact, and even that might be revised at some point to correct clerical errors. Don't tell me that you have at some point verified the user's name to be Cat Stevens, tell me you verified that fact in 1977 and let me decide if that data is fresh enough. 2) The openid.ax.validation parameter purports to be about quality, but the examples don't show the sort of options that Joseph A Holsten suggested (Supplied by user vs. OP thinks this is the user's email vs. the OP indemnifies the RP for any legal claims arising from the assertion being false). The examples show RPs specifying specific means of verification (token_via_email, pin_via_sms) which sounds both contentious (deciding which of two methods is stronger) and difficult to manage (who maintains the enumerated lists of methods? what happens if later research reveals a fundamental flaw in some method, or infrastructure changes alter the value of some methods?). I think it would be better to define the validation level as a number, and provide some guidance on what sort of current (i.e. as of the date the spec is approved) validation methods should equate to certain levels. There's always going to be a problem of trust here, as anybody could set up an OP that claims with 100% certaintly that my name is David Recordon. There will be a natural tendency for RPs to whitelist trustworthy OPs, just as we've seen whitelists of the PKI vendors we all depend on for our TLS/SSL certs. So don't get bogged down in an exhaustive enumeration of methods (I can just imagine providers of patended systems clamoring to be listed) and an exhausting excercise of comparing methods (whose PIN mailer is better? Is the US postal service more or less secure and trustworthy than the Swiss postal service?). Use general examples and numeric scores. -Peter > Op 8 dec 2009, om 05:36 heeft Allen Tom het volgende geschreven: > > > Id recommend using a timestamp indicating when it was last verified, with > > a special value to indicate that the OP is also the email provider and has > > 100% certainty. (perhaps just setting the verification time==now is > > sufficient) > > > > Allen > > > > > > On 12/7/09 8:29 PM, "Chris Messina" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Sounds like something to add to PoCo... perhaps something as simple as a > >> "verified" boolean added to email addresses? > >> > >> http://portablecontacts.net/draft-schema.html#anchor4 > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> +1 on email address metadata, many RPs definitely want this. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> ___________ > >>> > >>> Brian Kissel > >>> CEO, JanRain - WebID and Social Publishing for User Engagement > >>> Email: [email protected] Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502 > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [email protected] > >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Allen Tom > >>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 7:46 PM > >>> To: Peter Watkins; Chris Obdam; [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Yahoo available AX attrs > >>> > >>> Oops - I clicked send too early. > >>> > >>> The bad UX with AX is the security warning that most browsers display when > >>> POSTing a form from HTTPS to HTTP, which is the case when the Yahoo OP > >>> returns a lot of attributes. AX attribute names are excessively long, so > >>> it's very likely that using different attribute names for > >>> first/last/middle > >>> name will cause the response to be returned via POST. (2KB is the cutoff > >>> point) > >>> > >>> With regards to email address - unless we're 100% sure about the email > >>> address, we'd like to return metadata about the email address. > >>> Specifically, > >>> we'd like to indicate whether or not the email address was verified, and > >>> if > >>> so, when it was verified. This is definitely something that we'd like to > >>> get > >>> in to AX 2.0. > >>> > >>> Allen _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
