RE: OpenID.net Service Type Namespaces

2007-01-05 Thread Recordon, David
Bringing this back up as now with more extensions I think we need at least some sort of naming scheme. I'd propose we use for roots: http://specs.openid.net/authentication/VERSION... http://specs.openid.net/extensions/ABBREV/VERSION... Then corresponding:

Re: [OpenID] Dumb Question: Why isn't http://xri.net/=bobwyman an OpenID?

2007-01-05 Thread Bob Wyman
Drummond, Thanks for the detailed response. BTW: Below, you'll see what is happening when I use the Yadis diagnostic on the HXRI. I believe that users will, in fact, expect XRI's, i-names, and HXRI's to be interchangeable. I'm using 2idi.com, so I guess I have to wait for them to put in the fix?

Re: Attribute Exchange Schema site

2007-01-05 Thread Dick Hardt
Hi Rowan We will be releasing a tweaked version of the Attribute Exchange spec tomorrow. Adds a simple way to support requested and receiving multiple values for the same type. The old properties list is here: (there is a link to archives at the bottom of the specs page on OpenID.net)

Re: OpenID.net Service Type Namespaces

2007-01-05 Thread Martin Atkins
Recordon, David wrote: http://specs.openid.net/authentication/2.0/signon http://specs.openid.net/authentication/2.0/server http://specs.openid.net/authentication/2.0/identifier_select These seem just fine to me. (+1, I guess!) So very verbose and organized. There is no need for an xmlns

Re: Attribute Exchange Schema site

2007-01-05 Thread Rowan Kerr
On 1/5/07, Dick Hardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Attribute Type model is such that anyone with a domain can define new attributes. No need for central control. We created a set of what we thought were common attributes, but that does not mean anyone has to use them. Being able to define

RE: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3

2007-01-05 Thread Recordon, David
True, though why not still use this XML structure and the RetrievalMethod element within the XRDS so that can then point to a remote KeyInfo element in another XML document? --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Monroe Sent:

RE: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3

2007-01-05 Thread Granqvist, Hans
+1. A lot of thought went into the KeyInfo element design. And the spec can define a valid subset of KeyInfos, too, if needed. -Original Message- From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 09:50 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Grant Monroe Cc:

Re: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3

2007-01-05 Thread Grant Monroe
That sounds fine. I have never heard of the RetrievalMethod element, so I can't really speak to whether that is the way to go or not. Is it part of XRDS? On 1/5/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True, though why not still use this XML structure and the RetrievalMethod element within

Re: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3

2007-01-05 Thread Grant Monroe
On 1/5/07, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope, it is still part of the KeyInfo element defined at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/#sec-KeyInfo. Ok. I didn't realize that functionality was already defined. I think that seems like a reasonable change. I can't say

Requirements: Relationships

2007-01-05 Thread McGovern, James F \(HTSC, IT\)
Hopefully, everyone had the opportunity to read document I sent that outlines the business scenario(s) we are interested in using OpenID for. Figured I would start taking each theme and sharing requirements with the hope that others will react. The requirements for relationship are as