This is less a technical issue than one of business logic. Any OP can lie to an RP -- that's why they're "relying" parties!

The point of this discussion is to specify HOW an OP would indicate that they've already validated an email address -- or if they provide that user's email, making the email very likely to be valid. There are no guarantees that the user will receive messages at this address, only that the OP did the work to confirm that it was working at some point in the past.

Of course figuring out what such an attribute means is important (do they host the email? When and how did they verify it?) but for now we have several OPs who will a user's email as a convenience to the RP and it would be very valuable to not have to force the user to RE- verify their email to EVERY RP.

Again, it's up to the RP to decide what to do with this attribute, but defining it upfront is a useful effort since OPs already have this data!

Chris

Sent from my iPhone 2G

On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:57, Joseph A Holsten <[email protected]> wrote:

I understand the desire to say that the email is verified, but it strikes me as a bit like the urgent priority field in email. "No email provided" vs "This is the user's email" vs "This is Really the User's Email and I Mean It". Unless it means "This is the user's email, I've done due diligence, and you can hold me legally liable." Everything else boils down to understanding what the OP means when they make an assertion.

If you really want a verified flag/timestamp/zero-knowledge-proof, perhaps you have a better idea about the interaction flow when things aren't verified to 100% certainty. Would the OP require the user to verify their email before allowing them to authenticate? Leave it up to the RP to verify? What if the OP says they're certain but the RP doesn't actually trust them? What happens when the OP says they've verified, but not 100% certain? Do you expect different RPs to make different decisions in these circumstances? How would they choose?

I'm assuming we're not talking about RPs that have a significant legal / medical / financial interest in accurate assertions, because that's legal liability / consent / know your customer and you'll need more than a timestamp+i-mean-it for that.
--
j

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Allen Tom wrote:

I’d recommend using a timestamp indicating when it was last verifi ed, with a special value to indicate that the OP is also the email provider and has 100% certainty. (perhaps just setting the verifi cation 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:openid-specs- [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



On 12/7/09 7:39 PM, "Allen Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It definitely makes sense to use different attributes for givennanme/surname > so that RPs don't have to parse the string, and a few other RPs have also > asked for it. Our initial goal for our AX implementation was just to match
> SREG, and SREG only has a single openid.sreg.fullname attribute.
>
> We'll add support for separate first/last/middle/suffix attributes in a > followup release - probably early next year. I do hope that we're able to > standardize the attribute names, and also keep them short and compact. If you > ask for all our supported attributes, the response will exceed 2KB, which > requires that the response is returned via POST, causing a really bad UX.
>
> With regards to email address - we'd like to be able to return metadata about
> the email address w
>
>
>
> On 12/7/09 7:25 AM, "Peter Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:16:46AM +0100, Chris Obdam wrote:
>>>> Chris (Obdam) - which additional attributes would you like to see >>>> available? The attributes that we’ll be adding early next year will include >>>> Yahoo Profile URL and account creation date. A bunch of people have asked >>>> for Flickr Photos URL and Upcoming Profile URL, so we’ll probably get
>>>> around
>>>> to adding those too.
>>> I would like to access every attr specified in de AXschema? :-)
>>>
>>> In my Yahoo profile i have provided my address (home and work). I would like
>>> to use those in a sign form somewhere else.
>>> Same goes for my phone numbers.
>>
>> So would I. One of the simpler goals of our Single Sign On is prepopulating >> form fields; having postal address and phone number would be a help.
>>
>> I'd also like to see First and Last names available as separate attributes, >> otherwise we're trying to intelligently split both "Mary Jane Parker" and
>> "Malcom Mac Murray".
>>
>> Also I would prefer that you give us the user's *primary* email address. In >> my Yahoo profile, my Yahoo email address is flagged as "Share with no one" >> and I have a different email address flagged as primary, but your AX sends >> my yahoo email address. That's bad from usability in part because I very,
>> very seldom check my Yahoo email inbox.
>>
>> The Yahoo website attribute would also be nice to have; as we start >> building more "social" features on our sites, it would be nice to make >> it easier for our users to share links to their primary web presences, >> although I can understand if Yahoo management prefers to only expose the
>> Profile URL for business reasons.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Peter
>>

_______________________________________________
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


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

Reply via email to