Eran,

Just to let you know: OpenID Foundation has been working on the
identity layer on top of OAuth for several months already.
The draft spec of the Artifact Binding WG is 90% same as the Connect
proposal. If OAuth2.0 defines a "Request in a file"
or "Mobile Web App" kind of flow, it will be 95% the same. Admittedly,
it lacks the Discovery portion of the
Connect proposal, but that is to be dealt with v.Next Discovery led by
Allen Tom.

Just have a look: https://openid4.us/specs/ab/

Regards,

Nat

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email protected]> wrote:
> Discussing the name is a distraction. The issue is whether the OpenID 
> foundation wants to be where identity work is done, or where the OpenID 
> protocol (and nothing else) is done. Again, the question is very simple: 
> OAuth is going to have an identity layer (that's a done deal) - do you want 
> to work on it here under the OpenID foundation or not?
>
> Everything else (like naming, migration path from OpenID 2.0 to OAuth 2.0 
> identity) is stuff for the WG to figure out.
>
> This is a fundamental question far beyond all this geek talk: what is the 
> purpose of this community? Where are its boundaries? Is this the hub of web 
> identity work, or just one tiny piece of it?
>
> I'm happy with any answer.
>
> It would be helpful if people would voice clear opinions on this rather than 
> going in circles (i.e., start with "I'm for/against doing this work here, and 
> this is why...").
>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:openid-specs-
>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Atkins
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:49 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: OpenID Hybrid v2 Proposal (formerly known OpenID Connect)
>>
>> On 05/25/2010 01:56 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > A better way to look at OpenID Connect is to just think of it as
>> > revised version of the OpenID Hybrid. The purpose of the Hybrid WG was
>> > to find a way to combine OpenID Authentication with the approval of an
>> > Oauth access token into a single request/response.
>> >
>>
>> "OpenID Connect" isn't actually compatible with OpenID at anything but the
>> highest conceptual level.
>>
>> > Renaming the OpenID Connect WG to be the OpenID Hybrid v2 WG could
>> > possibly clarify the goals of the WG, and reduce confusion within the
>> community.
>> > Afterall - Hybrid is intended for the case where the user's IdP is
>> > also the SP, so the Connect proposal is really a revised Hybrid
>> > proposal, rather than a proposal for OpenID v.Next
>> >
>>
>> I think this would only make sense if the resulting protocol were 
>> functionally
>> equivalent to OpenID. That is to say that I can implement it against my
>> existing OpenID infrastructure without doing data migrations, changing my
>> UI, etc.
>>
>> I think the most important deviation in OpenID Connect is that the identifier
>> is no longer expected to be human-readable; while I completely agree that
>> this is the right design if we're starting over from a clean slate, that's a
>> breaking change for most existing consumer implementations that link to the
>> identifier as the user's "home page" or "profile page".
>>
>> I still think this thing should be branded with a stronger OAuth connotation
>> than an OpenID connotation, since it's far closer to OAuth than it is to
>> OpenID. I didn't really like the OpenID Connect name, but at least it made it
>> sound like this was something new and different; calling it OpenID/OAuth
>> Hybrid makes it sound a lot more like a different implementation of the same
>> thing than the radical rethink that OpenID Connect actually represents.
>>
>> That's my two cents, at least.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
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

Reply via email to