I suppose we need to define "OpenID identifiers" in the charter proposal a little more.
Specifically, I would like the discovery process to find a non-reassignable identifier. Otherwise, delegation would not work reliably etc. See: http://www.sakimura.org/en/modules/wordpress/identity-loss-with-openid-20/ for some additional thought/discussion. =nat On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > What follows is a draft charter for the OpenID v.Next Discovery working > group. This is one of 5 related charters for v.Next working groups to be > formed to be discussed here, per my previous message. Feedback is welcome, > as are potential working group participants. > > > > -- Mike > > > > (a) Charter. > > (i) WG name: OpenID v.Next Discovery. > > (ii) Purpose: Produce a discovery specification or family of discovery > specifications for OpenID v.Next that address the limitations and drawbacks > present in the OpenID 2.0 discovery facilities that limit OpenID’s > applicability, adoption, usability, privacy, and security. Specific goals > are: > > · enable discovery for OpenID identifiers, including those utilizing > e-mail address syntax and those that are URLs, > > · enable discovery of features supported by OpenID v.Next OpenID > Providers and Relying Parties, > > · enable discovery of attributes about OpenID v.Next OPs and RPs, > including, but limited to visual logos and human-readable site names, > > · enable discovery supporting a spectrum of clients, including > passive clients per current usage, thin active clients, and active clients > with OP functionality, > > · enable discovery supporting authentication to and use of > attributes by non-browser applications, > > · seamlessly integrate with and complement the other OpenID v.Next > specifications. > > Compatibility with OpenID 2.0 is an explicit non-goal for this > work. > > (iii) Scope: Produce a next generation OpenID discovery specification > or specifications, consistent with the purpose statement. > > (iv) Proposed List of Specifications: OpenID v.Next Discovery and > possibly related specifications. > > (v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: Implementers of OpenID > Providers, Relying Parties, Active Clients, and non-browser applications > utilizing OpenID. > > (vi) Language in which the WG will conduct business: English. > > (vii) Method of work: E-mail discussions on the working group mailing > list, working group conference calls, and face-to-face meetings at the > Internet Identity Workshop and OpenID summits. > > (viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is completed: Work > will not be deemed to be complete until there is a consensus that the > resulting protocol specification or family of specifications fulfills the > working group goals. Additional proposed changes beyond that initial > consensus will be evaluated on the basis of whether they increase or > decrease consensus within the working group. The work will be completed > once it is apparent that maximal consensus on the draft has been achieved, > consistent with the purpose and scope. > > (b) Background Information. > > (i) Related work being done in other WGs or organizations: OpenID > Authentication 2.0 and related specifications, including Yadis 1.0. OAuth > and OAuth WRAP. XRDS, XRD, and WebFinger. > > (ii) Proposers: > > Allen Tom, [email protected], Yahoo! (co-chair) > > Michael B. Jones, [email protected], Microsoft (co-chair) > > John Bradley, [email protected], independent > > Additional proposers to be added here > > (iii) Anticipated Contributions: None. > > > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ http://twitter.com/_nat_en _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
