On 8-Apr-07, at 1:01 PM, Mark Wahl wrote:
FYI if you are carrying attribuets in OpenID AX that are equivalent to
LDAP attributes with attribute types being standardized in the
IETF, then
you could use our LDAP schema definition metadata. We have
resolvable
HTTP URIs for each of the
On 9-Apr-07, at 8:23 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
Is there a list anywhere? I didn't find one in the documents and I
think this list would benefit everyone in the conversation. I'm
just curious as to the fields you're expecting an OP to implement.
While at Standard, I ended up hosting our
On 9-Apr-07, at 5:24 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
Yes, I agree an upgrade path from SREG is needed. We could however do
something as simple as
http://openid.net/specs/openid-simple-registration-
extension-1_0.html#ni
ckname for the existing SREG fields.
by making this a fragment, you force
On 10-Apr-07, at 12:21 AM, Dick Hardt wrote:
On 9-Apr-07, at 5:24 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
Yes, I agree an upgrade path from SREG is needed. We could
however do
something as simple as
http://openid.net/specs/openid-simple-registration-
extension-1_0.html#nickname for the existing SREG
On 10-Apr-07, at 9:39 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 4/10/07, Rowan Kerr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since
the main difference I'm seeing at the moment is that SREG doesn't
specifically request each value it wants, except in
openid.sreg.required
and openid.sreg.optional.
Um, that is exactly how
On 9-Apr-07, at 5:24 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
Yes, I agree an upgrade path from SREG is needed. We could however do
something as simple as
http://openid.net/specs/openid-simple-registration-
extension-1_0.html#ni
ckname for the existing SREG fields.
Dick wrote:
by making this a
schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)
On 4/6/07 6:07 PM, Dick Hardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone implementing would like to do something different, then I'd
welcome additional discussion, otherwise I think we should be able to
move forward with the proposal.
For what it's worth
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is that while in a perfect world we¹d have some great
common schema we could just use, I¹m not aware of any today. I worry that
attempting to navigate the existing schema efforts would introduce
significant delay. Also, approaching compatibility with a
On Apr 9, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Brian Hernacki wrote:
For what it's worth, as an implementer...
I think it makes sense to come to agreement within the OpenID
community and get something working first. While I appreciate the
issues involved with having multiple protocols and attribute
Are you really proposing that we should redefine First Name again?
Probably badly, as it has been done 1 times before? (because
previous experience in, say, representing the name structure in non-
western societies, typically doesn't get reused when things get
redefined?)
My point, of
Well, I'll stick my neck out here for my first post since AX drives most
of my interest in OpenID (aside from being an identity junkie in general).
As an implementor - there would be extremely positive benefits from
having a base set of attributes defined and available @
schema.openid.net . I
On 4/9/07 3:55 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
James Walker wrote:
As an implementor - there would be extremely positive benefits from
having a base set of attributes defined and available @
schema.openid.net . I agree that the people most interested right now
are the OpenID community implementors
for AX (and other extensions)
On 4/9/07 3:55 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
James Walker wrote:
As an implementor - there would be extremely positive benefits from
having a base set of attributes defined and available @
schema.openid.net . I agree that the people most interested right now
: Monday, April 09, 2007 07:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Recordon, David
Cc: James Walker; Martin Atkins; Mark Wahl; OpenID specs list
Subject:Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)
On 9-Apr-07, at 5:24 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
For new fields
Time
To: Recordon, David
Cc: James Walker; Martin Atkins; Mark Wahl; OpenID specs list
Subject:Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other
extensions)
On 9-Apr-07, at 5:24 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
For new fields, is there a reason we can't use the ldap.com URLs
Mark
Hi Mark
The URL mapping of LDAP attributes below looks pretty useful. Some of
those overlap with attributes we defined for AX, but many of the
attributes in AX are not defined, or don't have the same granularity.
Given that LDAP attributes were defined per the needs of enterprise,
and AX
OpenID Attribute Exchange (AX) uses URLs to uniquely identity
attributes. The URLs are resolvable to provide meta data that is both
machine and human readable.
In order to do anything useful with AX, some commons identity
attributes need to be defined.
I would propose that we start off
If there was something out there already, I would propose we used it.
There is not.
Just like the SAML crowd has accused the OpenID crowd of reinventing
an identity protocol (AKA reinventing the wheel) -- the AX proposal
has some unique concepts that people like Paul and Mark think are
specs list; Paul Trevithick; Mark Wahl
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)
If there was something out there already, I would propose we used it.
There is not.
Just like the SAML crowd has accused the OpenID crowd of reinventing an
identity protocol (AKA reinventing
To: Recordon, David
Cc: OpenID specs list; Paul Trevithick; Mark Wahl
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)
If there was something out there already, I would propose we used it.
There is not.
Just like the SAML crowd has accused the OpenID crowd of
reinventing
To: Recordon, David
Cc: OpenID specs list; Paul Trevithick; Mark Wahl
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)
The work is not rooted in openid.net. We are starting there. We can
easily point those definitions somewhere else later, but we need
somewhere to start.
Given
21 matches
Mail list logo
