Re: Question: multiple IdPs?

2006-10-19 Thread Josh Hoyt
On 10/18/06, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, the XML file can be based elsewhere. It is especially noteworthy that unless users are combining services, the XRDS document can be the same one that the IdP has issued to go with the IdP-specific URL. For instance, if I want to use

Re: IdP assisting user to present previous identifier

2006-10-19 Thread Dick Hardt
On 19-Oct-06, at 8:40 AM, Drummond Reed wrote: I agree the scenarios Dick proposes here make sense. However if the IdP can change an identifier parameter, it should be openid.portable, since: a) that's the one the RP is going to store, and b) that's the one the IdP MUST return with

Re: PROPOSAL: rename Identity Provider to OpenID Provider

2006-10-19 Thread Pete Rowley
Martin Atkins wrote: Granqvist, Hans wrote: Why not simply call the idp idp, and prefix it OpenID idp if context or clarification is needed, all referencing an OpenID spec def of OpenID idp? While I guess I agree with your objection, I don't like the redundant ID in OpenID IdP. It

Re: Two Identifiers - no caching advantage

2006-10-19 Thread Josh Hoyt
On 10/19/06, Josh Hoyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when she has control Sorry that I didn't put this all in one message, but: I think it's worthwhile to be aware of what might happen in scenarios where your identifier has been stolen, but it should not have much bearing on which proposal gets

Re: PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)

2006-10-19 Thread Pete Rowley
Recordon, David wrote: Combining this with the fact that there is no viable way to enforce sections 8.1 or A.4 being MUSTs, I do not believe that they should be changed from SHOULDs. The only conceivable way I could see of enforcing something like this is telling a Relying Party that they

Re: Two Identifiers - no caching advantage

2006-10-19 Thread Dick Hardt
On 19-Oct-06, at 11:18 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote: On 10/19/06, Dick Hardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sigh reread the attack. The portable identifier and the IdP do match. In fact, this makes me think of an attack that *would* succeed if the IdP-specific identifer was not in the response: when

Re: OpenID Login Page Link Tag (was RE: PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4))

2006-10-19 Thread Johannes Ernst
Isn't this a case where the Yadis infrastructure should be used instead of Yet Another Link Tag? On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:21, Drummond Reed wrote: Martin, I agree with Dick, this is a fascinating idea. P3P had the same idea notion for a site advertising the location of the P3P privacy

RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style Identifiers

2006-10-19 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Back at the dawn of the Web I made the mistake of thinking that the address bar was the place you type a URI. We now know that it is the place you type a search term that may be a URL in canonical form or may be a domain name or may be a search term to be thrown at a search engine. It was one

RE: XRI confusion

2006-10-19 Thread Drummond Reed
Dick, you are right that there are usability challenges with i-numbers and XDI.org and the i-broker community is working to address them. Although persistent identifiers are used everywhere in local systems (directories, databases, object stores, etc.), and the concept has been around at the