David,
Great questions -- see my thoughts/opinions inline...
david
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:36 PM, David Recordon da...@sixapart.com wrote:
Hey David,I've been following some of the discovery work the past few
months, but don't have a clear picture if the various components are
actually
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Breno de Medeiros br...@google.com wrote:
If we start the process to form a WG for discovery now, most likely the
process would only be completed in 6 months, even if there was considerable
agreement and stable technologies to draw from.
Right now, there is
Great feedback. I took the liberty to add this to the Discussion Points
on the wiki page.
http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID-Discovery
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Allen Tom a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
My primary concern with changing OpenID Discovery is the upgrade path to
the new discovery
.
Or at minimum a naming scheme that hilites the commonality .. UAPE :-)
paul
David Fuelling wrote:
For anyone interested, I've put out a 2nd draft of my OP-MultiAuth idea. I
think the first draft was pretty confusing, so hopefully this clarifies
things a bit more.
Wiki Page: http
For anyone interested, I've put out a 2nd draft of my OP-MultiAuth idea. I
think the first draft was pretty confusing, so hopefully this clarifies
things a bit more.
Wiki Page: http://wiki.openid.net/OP-MultiAuth
Actual Draft:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Peter Williams pwilli...@rapattoni.comwrote:
I gave up half way through my careful reply, as it was approaching
formatting-incomprehensible …to the poor reader trying follow it, point by
inset counterpoint.
Yes, I encountered the same thing in my responses.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura n-sakim...@nri.co.jp wrote:
2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service.
In the current terminology, OP spans both Discovery Service and
Authentication Service.
We should be explicit about it.
+1. I would like to
Sounds like you're simply mapping a SL UUID to an OpenID, so my opinion
would be no, this does not break the spec, so long as the actual OpenID
transaction utilizes the OpenID URL that you have on file in the DB.
This is very similar to the other discussions going on regarding using an
email
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
David Fuelling wrote:
I would even entertain the notion of the OpenID extension doing DNS lookup
first, then EAUT, though I need to think more on the topic. Alternatively,
maybe we make DNS optional.
At this point
John,
Have a look at OAuth (http://groups.google.com/group/oauth). I think it's
currently a private google group, but it seems like you've given a lot of
thought to this type of thing, so I'm sure the group owners would welcome
your input. There's a lot of activity going on over there.
David
What is OAuth? The group appears to be private, so is not accessible.
david
On 7/27/07, John Panzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should probably check out OAuth:
http://groups.google.com/group/oauth, and its draft
On 6/11/07, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/8/07, David Fuelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If in 50 years, a given canonical URL domain goes away, then couldn't a
given OpenId URL owner simply specify a new Canonical URL in his XRDS
doc?
If I understand the way that David Recordon
Assuming I understand things correctly, it seems like what we're calling a
canonical URL in this thread is really a pseudo-canonical URL since a given
OpenID's XRDS doc is what specifies the Canonical ID.
If in 50 years, a given canonical URL domain goes away, then couldn't a
given OpenId URL
Hey Johnny,
Thanks for your clarifications and answers to my questions about [1].
Over the last few days I've been thinking about your Identifier Recycling
proposal[2], in addition to other proposals (Tokens, etc). Assuming I
understand things correctly, it seems as if a hybrid of the
Hey Josh,
Thanks for your message and great points. See my thoughts/questions inline.
On 6/7/07, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/7/07, David Fuelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over the last few days I've been thinking about your Identifier
Recycling
proposal[2], in addition
I wasn't at IIW, so please bear with me.
In reference to the wiki at
http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/IIW2007a/Identifier_Recycling, can somebody
clarify what some of the terminology means? Specific questions are below.
1.) For URL+Fragment, what is the distinction between private and
public?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Gabe Wachob
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:02 PM
To: 'Drummond Reed'; 'Martin Atkins'; specs@openid.net
Subject: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery
snip
Basically, the Discovery Spec
-Original Message-
From: Robert Yates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For what it's worth I think that this is excellent.
Thanks for the positive feedback!
A couple of suggestions:
1) You probably should take a look at the URI Template spec [1].
These guys have done a lot of the work
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Shechtman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Proposal: SMTP service extension for Yadis discovery
there's nothing wrong with transforming an email to
an OpenId Endpoint url (using the root domain of the email).
That would require a rule for
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Carl Howells
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Questions about Spoofing OpenId
Some care has to be
taken to make sure that direct cross-linking won't work, but that's not
too difficult.
What do you mean by
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Atkins
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style
Identifiers
I provide email addresses to some of my friends,
with email addresses?
-Original Message-
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:37 PM
To: David Fuelling
Cc: specs@openid.net; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style Identifiers
Please don't map
Hey David,
Thanks for your ideas. Some more thoughts below.
-Original Message-
From: David Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:49 PM
To: David Fuelling
Cc: Martin Atkins; specs@openid.net; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Handle http
a user that the Identity URL they type in
(e.g., http://aol.com) is not their identity. Both will/would take some
education.
Thanks!
David Fuelling
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Recordon, David
Sent: Thursday, October
Please see my questions/ideas enclosed...
Thanks!
David Fuelling
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 1:04 AM
To: 'Recordon, David'; specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle http
]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:45 PM
To: David Fuelling; specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style Identifiers
Please don't use HTTP this way. That is not the semantics for http URLs.
A better scheme would be to use mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:45 PM
To: David Fuelling
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style Identifiers
# So, if in a hypothetical world where we have 4 potential OpenId
# values that a user could enter, AND the goal is to reduce
and encourage them to adopt openid...and here's why.
Anyway, this might be a different perspective on whether or not the [oops,
your login didn't work] is a bad thing.
-Original Message-
From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 5:06 PM
To: David
28 matches
Mail list logo
