IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors"Conference Call))
John, Thanks for the clarification. Eve's mail, clarifying the SAML Glossary definition of "identity provider", helped address some of my concerns. Although I feel that "authentication authority" is the single most accurate term for what an OpenID authentication service provider (currently called either an IdP and proposed to be called an OP) is providing, at this point I'm willing to go with the sentiments of the rest of the list if they prefer to either stick with IdP or switch to OP. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Kemp Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:19 PM Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Authentication Authority (was RE: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors"Conference Call)) Hi Drummond, If what we're trying to express is merely that an OpenID can provide an authentication assertion, then I agree that "authentication authority" is quite appropriate. I would note that in SAML at least (as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong Eve!), an authentication authority is not (in that role at least) being requested to actually authenticate the user (ie. to actually perform the authentication at that moment) - the request is only asking whether the authority can make an authentication assertion (ie. it's a query for authentication assertions, rather than an authentication request - which may have already been fulfilled). I don't know if that rather subtle difference is of any interest in OpenID? - John Drummond Reed wrote: > Eve, > > Welcome, and thanks for "delurking" ;-) > > I'm fascinated by your suggestion that the SAML vocabulary includes the term > "authentication authority". I'd vote for the OpenID Authentication 2.0 > specification (and the community at large) to adopt that term in a heartbeat > because: > > a) I've many times thought that "authentication authority" was PRECISELY the > role that the IdP/OP played in OpenID Authentication. > > b) I'm all for consistency with the SAML glossary because I know it was > intended to be specification-neutral and I'm a big supporter of harmonizing > vocabularies in a problem space (that's why we spent so long on the XRI > glossary in the identifier problem space -- see appendix C of > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15377). > > c) It allows us to step around all the semantic issues around whether an > OpenID IdP is really "providing an identity" or not (and also whether OpenID > is using classic "identity federation" or not.) > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Eve L. Maler > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:16 AM > To: specs@openid.net > Subject: Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call) > > Delurking for the first time on this list: :-) > > Drummond and I are on the same page about many things, but John is > right that SAML is agnostic as to the strength/significance of the > service being provided and so the two cases are much more similar > than different. On balance I prefer "identity provider" because > it's intuitive in an English sense, it's used in several technology > contexts (not just SAML and OpenID), and it avoids a terminological > "branding" that would otherwise seem to suggest a conceptual > divergence that doesn't -- to my mind -- exist. > > (By the way, there's another term SAML defines that seems to fit the > bill of what Drummond is going for here: "authentication authority". > This is not quite synonymous with "identity provider" in > SAML-land, but it's close -- much the way that "relying party" and > "service provider" are often close to the same thing. I'm not > seriously advocating using it -- just noting that the same software > component in an actual deployment can be seen in various lights and > have multiple names (roles!).) > > FWIW, > > Eve > > John Kemp wrote: >> Hi Drummond, >> >> Drummond Reed wrote: >>> So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's > because >>> of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically > different >>> than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which led to > SAML >>> and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, OpenID > supports >>> "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything at all >>> about each other. >> At http://www.openidp.org you'll find a promiscuous SAML
Re: Authentication Authority (was RE: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call))
Hi Drummond, If what we're trying to express is merely that an OpenID can provide an authentication assertion, then I agree that "authentication authority" is quite appropriate. I would note that in SAML at least (as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong Eve!), an authentication authority is not (in that role at least) being requested to actually authenticate the user (ie. to actually perform the authentication at that moment) - the request is only asking whether the authority can make an authentication assertion (ie. it's a query for authentication assertions, rather than an authentication request - which may have already been fulfilled). I don't know if that rather subtle difference is of any interest in OpenID? - John Drummond Reed wrote: > Eve, > > Welcome, and thanks for "delurking" ;-) > > I'm fascinated by your suggestion that the SAML vocabulary includes the term > "authentication authority". I'd vote for the OpenID Authentication 2.0 > specification (and the community at large) to adopt that term in a heartbeat > because: > > a) I've many times thought that "authentication authority" was PRECISELY the > role that the IdP/OP played in OpenID Authentication. > > b) I'm all for consistency with the SAML glossary because I know it was > intended to be specification-neutral and I'm a big supporter of harmonizing > vocabularies in a problem space (that's why we spent so long on the XRI > glossary in the identifier problem space -- see appendix C of > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15377). > > c) It allows us to step around all the semantic issues around whether an > OpenID IdP is really "providing an identity" or not (and also whether OpenID > is using classic "identity federation" or not.) > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Eve L. Maler > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:16 AM > To: specs@openid.net > Subject: Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call) > > Delurking for the first time on this list: :-) > > Drummond and I are on the same page about many things, but John is > right that SAML is agnostic as to the strength/significance of the > service being provided and so the two cases are much more similar > than different. On balance I prefer "identity provider" because > it's intuitive in an English sense, it's used in several technology > contexts (not just SAML and OpenID), and it avoids a terminological > "branding" that would otherwise seem to suggest a conceptual > divergence that doesn't -- to my mind -- exist. > > (By the way, there's another term SAML defines that seems to fit the > bill of what Drummond is going for here: "authentication authority". > This is not quite synonymous with "identity provider" in > SAML-land, but it's close -- much the way that "relying party" and > "service provider" are often close to the same thing. I'm not > seriously advocating using it -- just noting that the same software > component in an actual deployment can be seen in various lights and > have multiple names (roles!).) > > FWIW, > > Eve > > John Kemp wrote: >> Hi Drummond, >> >> Drummond Reed wrote: >>> So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's > because >>> of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically > different >>> than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which led to > SAML >>> and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, OpenID > supports >>> "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything at all >>> about each other. >> At http://www.openidp.org you'll find a promiscuous SAML IdP. >> >> While I agree with you that OpenID has been focused on this use-case, >> with an eye to the use-cases satisfied by SAML, I'd say that SAML has >> been developed with federated use-cases, but also with an eye to >> promiscuity. >> >> But to put it another way, the trust model used with SAML is >> out-of-scope for development of the SSO protocol itself. >> >> Just like it is for OpenID. >> >>> And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that >>> ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply >>> provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the > OpenID >>> identifier about which the OP is being queried. >> An
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Just to be clear, "identity provider" in SAML isn't intended to mean that this system entity is providing an identity to a digital subject -- it means that this system entity is providing identity information (specifically verification/authentication info) to a relying party/service provider. From the SAML glossary (now in HTML...): http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21053/saml-glossary-2.0-os.html#Identity Provider http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21053/saml-glossary-2.0-os.html#Relying Party Often, but not always, a SAML authentication authority also serves as an attribute authority: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21053/saml-glossary-2.0-os.html#Attribute Authority Eve John Kemp wrote: > Hi Pete, > > We're in agreement - I was just noting that a SAML IdP is asserting the > link between an identifier and a user/subject/principal, which is the > same as OpenID. > > As you say, in SAML, the identifier is often (but doesn't have to be) > created by the IdP. And, as you say, in OpenID, the identifier is often > (but doesn't have to be) created by the user. > > Regards, > > - John > > Pete Rowley wrote: >> John Kemp wrote: >>> Drummond Reed wrote: >>> And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the OpenID identifier about which the OP is being queried. >>> And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an >>> identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret shared >>> with the user - maybe a password, say? >>> >>> A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the IdP in >>> the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. >>> >> "issued by the IdP in the SAML case" is really the point. While an >> identifier /may/ be issued by an OpenID provider (IdP, AA, etc.) that is >> really the users choice, the user chooses their identifier and the user >> chooses who is authorized to provide authentication for the identifier. >> So really the OP, IdP, AA etc. isn't providing an identifier or an >> identity. It is providing an identifier ownership assertion service that >> may or may not be backed up by some form of authentication, and that >> service provider may be changed. >> >> > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > -- Eve Maler +1 425 947 4522 Technology Director eve.maler @ sun.com CTO Business Alliances groupSun Microsystems, Inc. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Hi Pete, We're in agreement - I was just noting that a SAML IdP is asserting the link between an identifier and a user/subject/principal, which is the same as OpenID. As you say, in SAML, the identifier is often (but doesn't have to be) created by the IdP. And, as you say, in OpenID, the identifier is often (but doesn't have to be) created by the user. Regards, - John Pete Rowley wrote: > John Kemp wrote: >> Drummond Reed wrote: >> >>> And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that >>> ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply >>> provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the >>> OpenID >>> identifier about which the OP is being queried. >>> >> >> And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an >> identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret shared >> with the user - maybe a password, say? >> >> A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the IdP in >> the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. >> > "issued by the IdP in the SAML case" is really the point. While an > identifier /may/ be issued by an OpenID provider (IdP, AA, etc.) that is > really the users choice, the user chooses their identifier and the user > chooses who is authorized to provide authentication for the identifier. > So really the OP, IdP, AA etc. isn't providing an identifier or an > identity. It is providing an identifier ownership assertion service that > may or may not be backed up by some form of authentication, and that > service provider may be changed. > > ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
John Kemp wrote: Drummond Reed wrote: And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the OpenID identifier about which the OP is being queried. And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret shared with the user - maybe a password, say? A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the IdP in the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. "issued by the IdP in the SAML case" is really the point. While an identifier /may/ be issued by an OpenID provider (IdP, AA, etc.) that is really the users choice, the user chooses their identifier and the user chooses who is authorized to provide authentication for the identifier. So really the OP, IdP, AA etc. isn't providing an identifier or an identity. It is providing an identifier ownership assertion service that may or may not be backed up by some form of authentication, and that service provider may be changed. -- Pete smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Authentication Authority (was RE: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call))
Eve, Welcome, and thanks for "delurking" ;-) I'm fascinated by your suggestion that the SAML vocabulary includes the term "authentication authority". I'd vote for the OpenID Authentication 2.0 specification (and the community at large) to adopt that term in a heartbeat because: a) I've many times thought that "authentication authority" was PRECISELY the role that the IdP/OP played in OpenID Authentication. b) I'm all for consistency with the SAML glossary because I know it was intended to be specification-neutral and I'm a big supporter of harmonizing vocabularies in a problem space (that's why we spent so long on the XRI glossary in the identifier problem space -- see appendix C of http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15377). c) It allows us to step around all the semantic issues around whether an OpenID IdP is really "providing an identity" or not (and also whether OpenID is using classic "identity federation" or not.) =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eve L. Maler Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:16 AM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call) Delurking for the first time on this list: :-) Drummond and I are on the same page about many things, but John is right that SAML is agnostic as to the strength/significance of the service being provided and so the two cases are much more similar than different. On balance I prefer "identity provider" because it's intuitive in an English sense, it's used in several technology contexts (not just SAML and OpenID), and it avoids a terminological "branding" that would otherwise seem to suggest a conceptual divergence that doesn't -- to my mind -- exist. (By the way, there's another term SAML defines that seems to fit the bill of what Drummond is going for here: "authentication authority". This is not quite synonymous with "identity provider" in SAML-land, but it's close -- much the way that "relying party" and "service provider" are often close to the same thing. I'm not seriously advocating using it -- just noting that the same software component in an actual deployment can be seen in various lights and have multiple names (roles!).) FWIW, Eve John Kemp wrote: > Hi Drummond, > > Drummond Reed wrote: >> So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's because >> of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically different >> than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which led to SAML >> and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, OpenID supports >> "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything at all >> about each other. > > At http://www.openidp.org you'll find a promiscuous SAML IdP. > > While I agree with you that OpenID has been focused on this use-case, > with an eye to the use-cases satisfied by SAML, I'd say that SAML has > been developed with federated use-cases, but also with an eye to > promiscuity. > > But to put it another way, the trust model used with SAML is > out-of-scope for development of the SSO protocol itself. > > Just like it is for OpenID. > >> And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that >> ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply >> provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the OpenID >> identifier about which the OP is being queried. > > And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an > identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret shared > with the user - maybe a password, say? > > A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the IdP in > the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. > >> This is a big deal. In fact, the closer you get to it, the bigger it is. >> >> As a result, even though an OP seems to fit the SAML definition of an IdP -- >> and many technical folks will be very comfortable treating the two as >> synonymous -- getting the semantics right to stress who really is in control >> of the identity ***right down to the identifier*** is very important. >> > > I don't think we need to worry about fitting the SAML glossary > definition of an IdP, but rather we should focus on making an OpenID > glossary definition that makes sense for what OpenID is doing. > >> Whatsmore, I don't think this should or will "drive SAML and OpenID further >> apart". In factit could actually help pave the path to convergence: an OP >>
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Eve L. Maler wrote: > On balance I prefer "identity provider" because > it's intuitive in an English sense, it's used in several technology > contexts (not just SAML and OpenID), and it avoids a terminological > "branding" that would otherwise seem to suggest a conceptual > divergence that doesn't -- to my mind -- exist. I agree. - John ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Why are the Liberty people so keen to keep the term IdP in OpenID? :-) We are changing the name because people were confusing what role IdP played in OpenID. They presumed it was the same role as in federation where trust was required. -- Dick On 7-Nov-06, at 8:15 AM, Eve L. Maler wrote: > Delurking for the first time on this list: :-) > > Drummond and I are on the same page about many things, but John is > right that SAML is agnostic as to the strength/significance of the > service being provided and so the two cases are much more similar > than different. On balance I prefer "identity provider" because > it's intuitive in an English sense, it's used in several technology > contexts (not just SAML and OpenID), and it avoids a terminological > "branding" that would otherwise seem to suggest a conceptual > divergence that doesn't -- to my mind -- exist. > > (By the way, there's another term SAML defines that seems to fit the > bill of what Drummond is going for here: "authentication authority". > This is not quite synonymous with "identity provider" in > SAML-land, but it's close -- much the way that "relying party" and > "service provider" are often close to the same thing. I'm not > seriously advocating using it -- just noting that the same software > component in an actual deployment can be seen in various lights and > have multiple names (roles!).) > > FWIW, > > Eve > > John Kemp wrote: >> Hi Drummond, >> >> Drummond Reed wrote: >>> So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe >>> it's because >>> of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically >>> different >>> than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which >>> led to SAML >>> and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, >>> OpenID supports >>> "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything >>> at all >>> about each other. >> >> At http://www.openidp.org you'll find a promiscuous SAML IdP. >> >> While I agree with you that OpenID has been focused on this use-case, >> with an eye to the use-cases satisfied by SAML, I'd say that SAML has >> been developed with federated use-cases, but also with an eye to >> promiscuity. >> >> But to put it another way, the trust model used with SAML is >> out-of-scope for development of the SSO protocol itself. >> >> Just like it is for OpenID. >> >>> And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that >>> ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP >>> simply >>> provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of >>> the OpenID >>> identifier about which the OP is being queried. >> >> And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an >> identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret >> shared >> with the user - maybe a password, say? >> >> A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the >> IdP in >> the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. >> >>> This is a big deal. In fact, the closer you get to it, the bigger >>> it is. >>> >>> As a result, even though an OP seems to fit the SAML definition >>> of an IdP -- >>> and many technical folks will be very comfortable treating the >>> two as >>> synonymous -- getting the semantics right to stress who really is >>> in control >>> of the identity ***right down to the identifier*** is very >>> important. >>> >> >> I don't think we need to worry about fitting the SAML glossary >> definition of an IdP, but rather we should focus on making an OpenID >> glossary definition that makes sense for what OpenID is doing. >> >>> Whatsmore, I don't think this should or will "drive SAML and >>> OpenID further >>> apart". In factit could actually help pave the path to >>> convergence: an OP >>> can be defined as being a SAML IdP that provides identifier >>> authentication >>> services using the OpenID protocol, which may end out (3.0?) >>> becoming a very >>> specific set of SAML capabilities. >> >> As noted earlier, I think a SAML IdP also provides "identifier >> authentication". I don't worry so much about convergence of these >> technologies (although that would be nice ;), but
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
On 7-Nov-06, at 8:17 AM, John Kemp wrote: > Dick Hardt wrote: >> >> On 7-Nov-06, at 7:59 AM, John Kemp wrote: >>> >>> I don't believe that trust is a differentiator between SAML >>> specifications and OpenID Authentication specifications. >>> >>> It is AFAICT, in both cases, simply out of scope. >> >> I should have been more clear, IdP is a Federation term and implies >> trust between the IdP and the RP. >> That is the definition that many people have about an IdP >> Since trust is NOT required between an OP and an RP in OpenID, a >> different term helps clarify that important point > > I'll quit repeating myself after this go around, but: > > "It [trust] is AFAICT, in both cases, simply out of scope." Trust is not out of scope for Federation. I am contrasting OpenID with Federation. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Dick Hardt wrote: > > On 7-Nov-06, at 7:59 AM, John Kemp wrote: >> >> I don't believe that trust is a differentiator between SAML >> specifications and OpenID Authentication specifications. >> >> It is AFAICT, in both cases, simply out of scope. > > I should have been more clear, IdP is a Federation term and implies > trust between the IdP and the RP. > That is the definition that many people have about an IdP > Since trust is NOT required between an OP and an RP in OpenID, a > different term helps clarify that important point I'll quit repeating myself after this go around, but: "It [trust] is AFAICT, in both cases, simply out of scope." Cheers, - John ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Delurking for the first time on this list: :-) Drummond and I are on the same page about many things, but John is right that SAML is agnostic as to the strength/significance of the service being provided and so the two cases are much more similar than different. On balance I prefer "identity provider" because it's intuitive in an English sense, it's used in several technology contexts (not just SAML and OpenID), and it avoids a terminological "branding" that would otherwise seem to suggest a conceptual divergence that doesn't -- to my mind -- exist. (By the way, there's another term SAML defines that seems to fit the bill of what Drummond is going for here: "authentication authority". This is not quite synonymous with "identity provider" in SAML-land, but it's close -- much the way that "relying party" and "service provider" are often close to the same thing. I'm not seriously advocating using it -- just noting that the same software component in an actual deployment can be seen in various lights and have multiple names (roles!).) FWIW, Eve John Kemp wrote: > Hi Drummond, > > Drummond Reed wrote: >> So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's because >> of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically different >> than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which led to SAML >> and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, OpenID supports >> "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything at all >> about each other. > > At http://www.openidp.org you'll find a promiscuous SAML IdP. > > While I agree with you that OpenID has been focused on this use-case, > with an eye to the use-cases satisfied by SAML, I'd say that SAML has > been developed with federated use-cases, but also with an eye to > promiscuity. > > But to put it another way, the trust model used with SAML is > out-of-scope for development of the SSO protocol itself. > > Just like it is for OpenID. > >> And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that >> ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply >> provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the OpenID >> identifier about which the OP is being queried. > > And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an > identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret shared > with the user - maybe a password, say? > > A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the IdP in > the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. > >> This is a big deal. In fact, the closer you get to it, the bigger it is. >> >> As a result, even though an OP seems to fit the SAML definition of an IdP -- >> and many technical folks will be very comfortable treating the two as >> synonymous -- getting the semantics right to stress who really is in control >> of the identity ***right down to the identifier*** is very important. >> > > I don't think we need to worry about fitting the SAML glossary > definition of an IdP, but rather we should focus on making an OpenID > glossary definition that makes sense for what OpenID is doing. > >> Whatsmore, I don't think this should or will "drive SAML and OpenID further >> apart". In factit could actually help pave the path to convergence: an OP >> can be defined as being a SAML IdP that provides identifier authentication >> services using the OpenID protocol, which may end out (3.0?) becoming a very >> specific set of SAML capabilities. > > As noted earlier, I think a SAML IdP also provides "identifier > authentication". I don't worry so much about convergence of these > technologies (although that would be nice ;), but more about giving a > converged message to users, developers, and purchasers of these > technologies. > > Regards, > > - John > >> =Drummond >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Recordon, David >> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:46 AM >> To: Dick Hardt; John Kemp; Patrick Harding >> Cc: specs@openid.net >> Subject: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call) >> >> I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct that the >> role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's IdP. The >> difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think reputation >> networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will ultimately >> be n
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
On 7-Nov-06, at 7:59 AM, John Kemp wrote: > Dick Hardt wrote: >> >> On 6-Nov-06, at 11:46 AM, Recordon, David wrote: >> >>> I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct >>> that the >>> role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's >>> IdP. The >>> difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think >>> reputation >>> networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will >>> ultimately >>> be needed for a technologies with "promiscuous trust models" to >>> thrive >>> in a large scale. >>> >>> I guess reading more of this is making me question if renaming IdP >>> really is the best thing to do in OpenID. I think if anything we >>> all, >>> as a larger community, should be working to bring OpenID and SAML >>> closer >>> together versus driving them further apart. >> >> I don't see this as driving SAML apart from OpenID. I see it as >> differentiating OpenID as being user-centric vs federated. >> The IdP has >> specific meaning in the federated world. A key differentiator with >> OpenID is that trust is not needed between the OP and the RP. It is >> implied and perhaps needed in the IdP / RP relationship. > > I don't believe that trust is a differentiator between SAML > specifications and OpenID Authentication specifications. > > It is AFAICT, in both cases, simply out of scope. I should have been more clear, IdP is a Federation term and implies trust between the IdP and the RP. That is the definition that many people have about an IdP Since trust is NOT required between an OP and an RP in OpenID, a different term helps clarify that important point > > I would hope that whatever ends up being the actual technical > definition > of an OpenID Identity Provider (how about OIdP? ;) does not limit that > entity to /only/ doing "untrusted" identity provision. If the entity being an OP is ALSO making "trusted" statements about the user, ie. the RP does have a trust relationship, then the OP entity has a different role at that time, which needs a different name. Authoritative Party? -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Dick Hardt wrote: > > On 6-Nov-06, at 11:46 AM, Recordon, David wrote: > >> I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct that the >> role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's IdP. The >> difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think reputation >> networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will ultimately >> be needed for a technologies with "promiscuous trust models" to thrive >> in a large scale. >> >> I guess reading more of this is making me question if renaming IdP >> really is the best thing to do in OpenID. I think if anything we all, >> as a larger community, should be working to bring OpenID and SAML closer >> together versus driving them further apart. > > I don't see this as driving SAML apart from OpenID. I see it as > differentiating OpenID as being user-centric vs federated. > The IdP has > specific meaning in the federated world. A key differentiator with > OpenID is that trust is not needed between the OP and the RP. It is > implied and perhaps needed in the IdP / RP relationship. I don't believe that trust is a differentiator between SAML specifications and OpenID Authentication specifications. It is AFAICT, in both cases, simply out of scope. I would hope that whatever ends up being the actual technical definition of an OpenID Identity Provider (how about OIdP? ;) does not limit that entity to /only/ doing "untrusted" identity provision. Regards, - John ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
On 6-Nov-06, at 10:25 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: > Why? It's because in a user-centric identity, the OP is fundamentally > NOT (that enough stars for you? ;-) the provider of > anyone's > "identity". It is providing the OpenID protocol service though, correct? Not sure if you are wanting to suggest a different name ... are you? > Let me elaborate. In the last 2 months, I've had numerous > conversations with > SAML proponents asking me, "Why is there so much interest in > OpenID? It's > just reinventing SAML without a lot of the complexity." And each > time I > admit that, to the best of my knowledge, this is largely true. Just like SMTP was reinventing X.400 and LDAP was reinventing X.500. ;-) Seriously, SAML is a bunch of things: an abstract message specification (SAML 2.0) a collection of bindings of the message specification to various protocols The big difference is: + the simplicity of the message, + a lower bar to entry both from a technical and a trust point of view, and + a complete description system description that can be deployed It is likely that a future OpenID extension/version uses the SAML message format as more complexity is required in the message. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
On 6-Nov-06, at 11:46 AM, Recordon, David wrote: > I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct that the > role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's > IdP. The > difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think > reputation > networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will > ultimately > be needed for a technologies with "promiscuous trust models" to thrive > in a large scale. > > I guess reading more of this is making me question if renaming IdP > really is the best thing to do in OpenID. I think if anything we all, > as a larger community, should be working to bring OpenID and SAML > closer > together versus driving them further apart. I don't see this as driving SAML apart from OpenID. I see it as differentiating OpenID as being user-centric vs federated. The IdP has specific meaning in the federated world. A key differentiator with OpenID is that trust is not needed between the OP and the RP. It is implied and perhaps needed in the IdP / RP relationship. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
Hi Drummond, Drummond Reed wrote: > So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's because > of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically different > than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which led to SAML > and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, OpenID supports > "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything at all > about each other. At http://www.openidp.org you'll find a promiscuous SAML IdP. While I agree with you that OpenID has been focused on this use-case, with an eye to the use-cases satisfied by SAML, I'd say that SAML has been developed with federated use-cases, but also with an eye to promiscuity. But to put it another way, the trust model used with SAML is out-of-scope for development of the SSO protocol itself. Just like it is for OpenID. > And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that > ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply > provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the OpenID > identifier about which the OP is being queried. And how does one authenticate that the user has control over an identifier? Is it not by having the OpenID IdP having some secret shared with the user - maybe a password, say? A SAML IdP also authenticates that an identifier (issued by the IdP in the SAML case) is bound to a particular user. > > This is a big deal. In fact, the closer you get to it, the bigger it is. > > As a result, even though an OP seems to fit the SAML definition of an IdP -- > and many technical folks will be very comfortable treating the two as > synonymous -- getting the semantics right to stress who really is in control > of the identity ***right down to the identifier*** is very important. > I don't think we need to worry about fitting the SAML glossary definition of an IdP, but rather we should focus on making an OpenID glossary definition that makes sense for what OpenID is doing. > Whatsmore, I don't think this should or will "drive SAML and OpenID further > apart". In factit could actually help pave the path to convergence: an OP > can be defined as being a SAML IdP that provides identifier authentication > services using the OpenID protocol, which may end out (3.0?) becoming a very > specific set of SAML capabilities. As noted earlier, I think a SAML IdP also provides "identifier authentication". I don't worry so much about convergence of these technologies (although that would be nice ;), but more about giving a converged message to users, developers, and purchasers of these technologies. Regards, - John > > =Drummond > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Recordon, David > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:46 AM > To: Dick Hardt; John Kemp; Patrick Harding > Cc: specs@openid.net > Subject: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call) > > I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct that the > role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's IdP. The > difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think reputation > networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will ultimately > be needed for a technologies with "promiscuous trust models" to thrive > in a large scale. > > I guess reading more of this is making me question if renaming IdP > really is the best thing to do in OpenID. I think if anything we all, > as a larger community, should be working to bring OpenID and SAML closer > together versus driving them further apart. > > --David > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dick Hardt > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:20 PM > To: John Kemp > Cc: specs@openid.net > Subject: Re: "Editors" Conference Call > > > On 1-Nov-06, at 12:28 PM, John Kemp wrote: >> OK. Just checking. So an IdP/OP can choose whether or not to trust a >> particular RP, based on some out-of-ban criteria. And an RP can choose > >> whether or not to trust the assertions of a particular IdP/OP? OK >> good. > > Technically possible, yes for the RP to decide on an IdP/OP. > Currently, there is no verified RP identity, so the IdP/OP cannot make > that decision. > >>> I have not had a chance to wade into that discussion. >> I'd highly recommend it when you get the chance. > > in my queue :) > >>>> I suspect the latter case will be unlikely, if OpenID is to be >>>> successful. >>> And I do not. And that is the big driver why it should be OP instead >>
RE: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
I want to clear up what I believe are two misconceptions about the proposed terminology change (both in the specs and across all the OpenID educational/marketing materials) from "Identity Provider" (IdP) to "OpenID Provider" (OP). (Note that these are my personal views and may not be shared by others on the list -- the are offered to help propel the discussion towards a community consensus.) 1) I don't personally believe there is much difference at all between "identity provider" (IdP) and "OpenID provider" (OP) -- certainly not enough to debate. We might even just agree that an OP is what SAML calls an IdP that uses the OpenID protocol for authentication. That's not at all the reason why I support the terminology change. The real reason... 2) ...is that in the context of user-centric identity, I have always felt that the term "identity provider" -- though I fully understand that it goes back to the start of SAML -- is at least inappropriate and perhaps even downright misleading. Why? It's because in a user-centric identity, the OP is fundamentally NOT (that enough stars for you? ;-) the provider of anyone's "identity". This might look like a little thing, but on such little things entire worldviews rest. Let me elaborate. In the last 2 months, I've had numerous conversations with SAML proponents asking me, "Why is there so much interest in OpenID? It's just reinventing SAML without a lot of the complexity." And each time I admit that, to the best of my knowledge, this is largely true. So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's because of the trust model. To the best of my knowledge, it is radically different than the trust model assumed by the majority of use cases which led to SAML and the Liberty Alliance specs. As Eve Maler of Sun puts it, OpenID supports "promiscuous federation" -- RPs and OPs that don't know anything at all about each other. And it doesn't stop there. OpenID also supports OPs that ***have zero control over the user's OpenID identifier***. The OP simply provides a service for authenticating that a user has control of the OpenID identifier about which the OP is being queried. This is a big deal. In fact, the closer you get to it, the bigger it is. As a result, even though an OP seems to fit the SAML definition of an IdP -- and many technical folks will be very comfortable treating the two as synonymous -- getting the semantics right to stress who really is in control of the identity ***right down to the identifier*** is very important. Whatsmore, I don't think this should or will "drive SAML and OpenID further apart". In factit could actually help pave the path to convergence: an OP can be defined as being a SAML IdP that provides identifier authentication services using the OpenID protocol, which may end out (3.0?) becoming a very specific set of SAML capabilities. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Recordon, David Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:46 AM To: Dick Hardt; John Kemp; Patrick Harding Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call) I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct that the role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's IdP. The difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think reputation networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will ultimately be needed for a technologies with "promiscuous trust models" to thrive in a large scale. I guess reading more of this is making me question if renaming IdP really is the best thing to do in OpenID. I think if anything we all, as a larger community, should be working to bring OpenID and SAML closer together versus driving them further apart. --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:20 PM To: John Kemp Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: "Editors" Conference Call On 1-Nov-06, at 12:28 PM, John Kemp wrote: > OK. Just checking. So an IdP/OP can choose whether or not to trust a > particular RP, based on some out-of-ban criteria. And an RP can choose > whether or not to trust the assertions of a particular IdP/OP? OK > good. Technically possible, yes for the RP to decide on an IdP/OP. Currently, there is no verified RP identity, so the IdP/OP cannot make that decision. >> I have not had a chance to wade into that discussion. > > I'd highly recommend it when you get the chance. in my queue :) > >> >>> I suspect the latter case will be unlikely, if OpenID is to be >>> successful. >> >> And I do not. And that is the big driver why it should be OP instead >&g
IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: "Editors" Conference Call)
I see both sides of this discussion. I think John is correct that the role of an OP really is not that different than that of SAML's IdP. The difference comes down to the trust model. I certainly think reputation networks will exist which rate OPs, RPs, users, etc and will ultimately be needed for a technologies with "promiscuous trust models" to thrive in a large scale. I guess reading more of this is making me question if renaming IdP really is the best thing to do in OpenID. I think if anything we all, as a larger community, should be working to bring OpenID and SAML closer together versus driving them further apart. --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:20 PM To: John Kemp Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: "Editors" Conference Call On 1-Nov-06, at 12:28 PM, John Kemp wrote: > OK. Just checking. So an IdP/OP can choose whether or not to trust a > particular RP, based on some out-of-ban criteria. And an RP can choose > whether or not to trust the assertions of a particular IdP/OP? OK > good. Technically possible, yes for the RP to decide on an IdP/OP. Currently, there is no verified RP identity, so the IdP/OP cannot make that decision. >> I have not had a chance to wade into that discussion. > > I'd highly recommend it when you get the chance. in my queue :) > >> >>> I suspect the latter case will be unlikely, if OpenID is to be >>> successful. >> >> And I do not. And that is the big driver why it should be OP instead >> of IdP. > > I think what you're trying to say is that OpenID won't depend on > static trust relationships (like business contracts) between RPs and > IdP/ OPs - is that right? In which case, sure, I get that. > > But I do think OpenID will depend on there emerging a way of some RP > trusting (or not) some IdP (and vice-versa). Whitelists and blacklists > seem like a scalable and dynamic way of doing that, and would seem to > be a reasonable way of minimizing the presence of rogue IdPs. Don't > take my word for it though - look at the discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think there should be an OP reputation. I will wade into the security@ list to discuss. >> asserted data. >> The OP is not verifying the accuracy of any of the attributes in >> attribute exchange. > > A claim by my IdP/OP /might/ be a claim by a third-party, no? And if > the IdP/OP makes such a claim on my behalf (and is not under my direct > control), won't it at least want to verify that the subject of the > claim is also the user whose identifier it asserted in OpenID > Authentication? If the OP is making a separate claim about you, then it is not being an OP at that time. Perhaps I am missing your point here though. > >> >>> In OpenID Authentication, there is no trust relationship requirement between the IdP and RP., and the only thing the IdP asserts is a binding between the user and an identifier (OpenID URL or i-name). >>> >>> And on what basis does the OP "assert" this binding to an RP? >>> Doesn't >>> the OP typically "authenticate" that binding, or does it simply >>> take the >>> users identifier on blind faith, and assert away? >> >> The OP authenticates the user (how the OP authenticates the user >> is out >> of scope of the spec). > > OK - so the user probably maintains an "account" with the OP, very > much > like a user would with an IdP? Unless the user runs her own OP. The OP has a mechanism to determine which user it is interacting with. If the user is running her own OP, then there is still an authentication process of some kind such as access to the machine. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
