Re[2]: Server-to-server channel

Hi All, Since it's a lot easier to just put a server-to-server mechanism in place, than it is to argue about what it should be used for - can we perhaps instead attempt to agree that server-to-server is going to be something potentially useful in at least some cases, and go ahead and specify it?

Re: Promoting OpenID

McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) wrote: Is anyone here working with vendors in the ERP, CRM, ECM, BPM or VRM spaces such that user-centric identity is built into their product? Mm tasty acronym soup! ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net

Re: Promoting OpenID

On 2-Apr-07, at 8:15 AM, McGovern, James F ((HTSC, IT)) wrote: Is anyone here working with vendors in the ERP, CRM, ECM, BPM or VRM spaces such that user-centric identity is built into their product? We are working with salesforce.com ... ___

Re: SREG namespace URI rollback

Recordon, David wrote: I see there being a gap between SREG and AX with nothing bridging it. IMHO, AX takes too large of a step for people to use it if they just want a few more SREG fields. I think we need something which does nothing more than provide a way to extend SREG and that will

Re[2]: Server-to-server channel

Hi Martin, You wrote MA The age of the information needs to be taken into account here. When the information (rightly) lives at the OP instead of the RP, none of that age complexity exists. It's *my* name. It's *my* credit card. If any RP wants this info, make them come to me (my OP) and get

RE: Web Access Management

Based on your response, it feels kinda soft in terms of large vendor commitment. If we figure out how to get better collectively at marketing OpenID especially at end-customers and why they need it, then we can get some acceleration in terms of adoption. If you have specific names of folks at

RE: Promoting OpenID

Great to hear that you are working with salesforce.com. Would someone else on this list volunteer to work with Siebel, Peoplesoft, SAP, Intalio and Alfresco? -Original Message- From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:57 AM To: McGovern, James F (HTSC,

Re: Server-to-server channel

Chris Drake wrote: Hi Martin, You wrote MA The age of the information needs to be taken into account here. When the information (rightly) lives at the OP instead of the RP, none of that age complexity exists. It's *my* name. It's *my* credit card. If any RP wants this info, make them

Re: Server-to-server channel

On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: Anders Feder wrote: Imagine an RP requesting your bank account number X from your OP. Time goes by, and your OP goes out of business. Later, you switch banks and your account number X is assigned to someone else. In the meantime,

RE: SREG namespace URI rollback

In some sense both, maybe it is just how the documents seem to be laid out, it just doesn't seem as dead simple as SREG. Maybe it is just reworking the layout of http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute-exchange-1_0-04.html and removing the document about policy versus technology

Re: Server-to-server channel

On Apr 4, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: This may seem to be off topic, but I really don't see reluctance in using public key cryptography. DKIM would be one such example. Nearly every gateway, and access point can utilize this means of authentication. Think of this as yet another

Re: SREG namespace URI rollback

David, On 4-Apr-07, at 11:43 AM, Recordon, David wrote: - Cleanup the newly merged http://openid.net/specs/openid-attribute-exchange-1_0-04.html to be more concise and list URLs for the existing SREG parameters. This will thus show an easy upgrade path between SREG and AX. I think

Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)

Hey Johnny, I agree that you're doing a good job especially with your pre-draft 5 review message. Let's continue that way! There have been things in the past, not that you've done, which have certainly rubbed me the wrong way about AX. Does seem like we're all moving forward though with good

Re: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)

On 4-Apr-07, at 12:18 PM, Recordon, David wrote: One thing that I do think would be worthwhile in smoothing more of this SREG/AX confusion would be adding SREG support to Sxip's OpenID libraries. This is on the todo list, and judging by the interest showed by some contributors could

Re: Server-to-server channel

On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Vinay Gupta wrote: On Apr 4, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: There could be keys used to authorize some other automated service, or to act as a replacement for OpenID once the key has been established. One might be defined for email, IM, VoIP, etc.

Re: Server-to-server channel

On Apr 4, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: Related services that can be enabled by using OpenID as a key distribution scheme. Keys would need to relate to services handled by the consumer or RP. A sub-attribute could help facilitate correct placement of the keys and to allow

Re: Updated normalization section to match the upcoming XRI Syntax 2.1.

Sorry it took me a few months to notice this, but xri://$dns? No. I'm referring here to spec rev 274, the diff for which is attached. Can we roll that patch back, please? I'm not even sure where you're getting an XRI Syntax 2.1 reference from, there's not so much as a working draft of it

RE: Updated normalization section to match the upcoming XRI Syntax2.1.

Kevin Turner wrote: Sorry it took me a few months to notice this, but xri://$dns? No. I'm referring here to spec rev 274, the diff for which is attached. Can we roll that patch back, please? I'm not even sure where you're getting an XRI Syntax 2.1 reference from, there's not so much as a

Re[2]: Server-to-server channel

Thursday, April 5, 2007, 3:50:49 AM, Martin wrote: MA Chris Drake wrote: Hi Martin, You wrote MA The age of the information needs to be taken into account here. When the information (rightly) lives at the OP instead of the RP, none of that age complexity exists. It's *my* name. It's

Re: Re[2]: Server-to-server channel

This was, of course, the original LID design, and you are presenting the rationale for it. See http://lid.netmesh.org/ On Apr 4, 2007, at 20:59, Chris Drake wrote: Thursday, April 5, 2007, 5:43:02 AM, you wrote: [snip] DO How these keys are handled internally could be left to the DO

Re[2]: Server-to-server channel

Thursday, April 5, 2007, 5:43:02 AM, you wrote: [snip] DO How these keys are handled internally could be left to the DO consumer or RP. [snip] This sounds like another *strong* use-case for updating the OpenID protocol to allow transactions to take place when the user is not present. I am not

RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)

+1 to defining attribute identifier URIs/XRIs in the Identity Commons ID Schemas project. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Recordon, David Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:16 PM To: Johnny Bufu Cc: OpenID specs list Subject: