RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier

2008-04-02 Thread Paul E. Jones
Dick,

 

I'll give you that one: that's certainly easier.  But, does not cause some
confusion?  After all, one's identity is not yahoo.com, but that is the
identity provider.  Perhaps the prompts around the Internet ought to Say
OpenID Provider: instead? :-)

 

Presently, this variant works form some providers, but not most.  I assume
it's due to the fact they're not fully compliant with the spec yet? Or, is
there some confusion as to how this ought to work?

 

Paul

 

From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:09 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: 'Eran Hammer-Lahav'; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier

 

Entering yahoo.com is even easier!

 

On 1-Apr-08, at 10:05 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:





Eran,

 

I'm not suggesting that the address must be a real e-mail address.  I'm
suggesting that the ID has that form.  It's easier for users than
enteringhttps://me.yahoo.com/userid.  If it happens to also be one's real
e-mail address, fine.  That would be a plus for me, but I don't see that as
a requirement.

 

Paul

 

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:17 AM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier

 

Take a look at
http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/01/addressing-open.html -
especially the list of other solutions proposed before me, as well as Brad's
proposal.

 

The thing is, you need the @gmail, @hotmail, @msn, @yahoo, @aol to support
this DNS, and they *are* the email providers.

 

EHL

 

From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:42 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier

 

Eran,

 

You're entirely correct that this is not an OpenID issue, per se.  In fact,
not a single word of text would need to be changed in the current v2 specs,
as far as I'm concerned.

 

But, I do think that it will take some of the core OpenID team members to
put a stake in the ground and say, this is the convention that we'll
follow.  What needs to happen then is perhaps an extension written that
explains how to convert an email address to a URL.  Using NAPTR records
seems like the simplest way to do it to me, but I'm open to suggestions.

 

Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires the
e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler notation.  I
could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should work, if
myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record.  I could also
insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that would allow me
to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID provider.  In
short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does not mean that it
necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more importantly, it just
follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822.

 

Paul

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:43 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier

 

The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go
live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support
it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a
feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and
you've got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard
but finding a company willing to put something out there.

 

As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple
template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not
an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI -- HTTP URI conversation. Basically if
you had a generic way of moving frommailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to
http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the
user), any URI can be used for OpenID.

 

But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they
are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the
snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? J

 

EHL

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier

 

Folks,

 

I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the
OpenID identifier.  Perhaps this one says it best:

http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php

 

I share many of same opinions.  If OpenID is going to be practically usable
by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very
complex identifier.  When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it
presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a
base64-encoded string.  I could not begin to tell you what it was.

Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier

2008-04-02 Thread James Henstridge
On 02/04/2008, Paul E. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   A solution that matches closer with what the user expects would be to
   map [EMAIL PROTECTED] to a claimed ID of mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].

 The average user is not going to know what mailto:; is.

The mailto: transition would be something done internally by the RP.
The RP could (and probably should) display email addresses without the
mailto:; prefix to the user.

This is similar to the way RPs store persistent XRIs as the user's
claimed ID but are encouraged to display the reassignable XRI.


   For (2), I'd suggest a solution that maps the email address to either
   directly to an OpenID endpoint (using the claimed ID as local ID), or
   to an XRDS file.  A DNS based solution seems fine here (either your
   NAPTR idea, or TXT records as suggested in replies to your post).


 NAPTR queries and transformations are straight-forward.  It's just a regular
  expression transformation from something that looks like an e-mail address
  to the real OpenID ID.

  But, again, I don't really care how it works. But, for the benefit of those
  who are not so technically capable, I believe it's got to be super, super
  trivial.  NAPTR would work extremely well, I think, and would be fast.  Any
  OpenID OP could provide an e-mail style identifier and it would certainly be
  a motivator for anybody providing e-mail service to also OpenID enable their
  subscriber's e-mail addresses.

I don't think there is a need to introduce an HTTP identity URL here.
If you're going to use an email address as an identity, then use an
email address as an identity.

James.
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier

2008-04-02 Thread Dick Hardt


On 1-Apr-08, at 11:15 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:


Dick,

I’ll give you that one: that’s certainly easier.  But, does not  
cause some confusion?  After all, one’s identity is not yahoo.com,  
but that is the identity provider.  Perhaps the prompts around the  
Internet ought to Say “OpenID Provider:” instead? :-)


:-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be  
done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy  
for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user  
click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then  
any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not  
expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that  
awareness is higher, having it built into the browser is feasible. I  
of course am biased given the work we have done with Sxipper http://sxipper.com 
 :)




Presently, this variant works form some providers, but not most.  I  
assume it’s due to the fact they’re not fully compliant with the  
spec yet? Or, is there some confusion as to how this ought to work?


I don't think an OP is not OpenID 2.0 compliant if it does not take  
the OP as an identifier -- but I would have to reread to the spec to  
make sure.


-- Dick



___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier

2008-04-02 Thread Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten
Does anyone have the time to write an email - xrds discovery spec so  
we can formally ignore it? And so people can argue with their dns  
providers instead of on list?


http:// Joseph Holsten .com


On 02008:04:01, at 9:30CDT, Paul E. Jones wrote:


Folks,



I’ve seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail  
address as the OpenID identifier.  Perhaps this one says it best:


http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php



I share many of same opinions.  If OpenID is going to be  
practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the  
person to remember some very complex identifier.  When I signed up  
for Yahoo’s OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly  
URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string.  I could not  
begin to tell you what it was.  Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to  
define my own, friendlier name.  Still, the ID is not one that the  
average user will remember or get right.




While the e-mail address does not have to be the one’s ID, it can  
certainly serve as an alias.  Suppose, for example, that the DNS  
records at Yahoo contained the following entry:




  yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 U OpenID2 ^(.+)@(.*)$!https:// 
me.yahoo.com/\1!i




This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and  
perform a simple transformation to get the “real” URL identifier.   
Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI  
identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the “email address”  
has to be a real e-mail address.  But, this form would certainly be  
far simpler for most people to deal use.




If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was  
the reason?




Thanks,

Paul



___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


OpenID and Yahoo

2008-04-02 Thread McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT)
 Does anyone have a perspective on Yahoo and AOL and their weak support
for OpenID? It is good that they are a provider, but shouldn't they
really also allow access based on an OpenID issued by signon.com,
myvidoop.com and others...


*
This communication, including attachments, is
for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary,
confidential and/or privileged information.  If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is
strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and
destroy all copies.
*

___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


Re: OpenID and Yahoo

2008-04-02 Thread Dick Hardt

On 2-Apr-08, at 6:28 AM, McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) wrote:
 Does anyone have a perspective on Yahoo and AOL and their weak support
 for OpenID? It is good that they are a provider, but shouldn't they
 really also allow access based on an OpenID issued by signon.com,
 myvidoop.com and others...

I would be much more interested in them supporting Attribute Exchange  
so that their users data could easily be consumed by other sites.

This topic was recently covered by TechCrunch[1] and I responded [2]

-- Dick

[1] 
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/24/is-openid-being-exploited-by-the-big-internet-companies/

[2] http://identity20.com/?p=147



___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier

2008-04-02 Thread Paul E. Jones
Joseph,

 

That argument was given to me yesterday, but I don't think you really need
to worry with your DNS provider unless you're also trying to operate your
own OP.

 

Suppose, for example, you have an ID assigned by myopenid.com.  I don't know
what URI format they'll use, but let's say it is
https://myopenid.com/joseph.  Or, perhaps it's https://joseph.myopenid.com.
Whatever the format, there is always a user component to it.  So, it would
be quite simply to take the user component and put it into an e-mail ID
style like [EMAIL PROTECTED]  This does not necessarily mean you have an
e-mail address, but it could be an e-mail address.

 

The conversion from that form to a URI form is easily achieved via NAPTR
records similar to the one I show below.  So, before any XRDS query is
performed, the RP would see if the ID provided is an e-mail-style ID.  If
so, query for the NAPTR record and then perform the conversion from the
e-mail-style to a URL.  From there, it all works the same.  It's just a
make it simple enhancement that requires no changes to the core Open ID
specs.

 

Paul

 

From: Joseph Holsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph
Anthony Pasquale Holsten
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:52 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier

 

Does anyone have the time to write an email - xrds discovery spec so we can
formally ignore it? And so people can argue with their dns providers instead
of on list?

 

http:// Joseph Holsten .com

 

 

On 02008:04:01, at 9:30CDT, Paul E. Jones wrote:





Folks,

 

I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the
OpenID identifier.  Perhaps this one says it best:

http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php

 

I share many of same opinions.  If OpenID is going to be practically usable
by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very
complex identifier.  When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it
presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a
base64-encoded string.  I could not begin to tell you what it was.
Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name.  Still, the
ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right.

 

While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly
serve as an alias.  Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo
contained the following entry:

 

  yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 U OpenID2
^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i https://me.yahoo.com/1!i 

 

This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a
simple transformation to get the real URL identifier.  Of course, this
does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does
it mean that the email address has to be a real e-mail address.  But, this
form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use.

 

If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason?

 

Thanks,

Paul

 

___

specs mailing list

specs@openid.net

http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

 

___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


Re: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)

2008-04-02 Thread George Fletcher


Drummond Reed wrote:
 Dick Hardt wrote:

 :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be
 done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy
 for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user
 click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then
 any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not
 expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that
 awareness is higher, having it built into the browser is feasible. I
 of course am biased given the work we have done with Sxipper
 http://sxipper.com :)
   
 For the majority of users, this is probably the most likely path of
 introduction to OpenID. Note that it's not just about allowing the user
 to do something with one click, but also about being proactive and
 informing the user that they can login to a site with an identity they
 already have. This can be as simple as telling the browser identity
 agent (e.g. sxipper) which email addresses the user has and letting the
 identity agent figure out which OpenID's the user has that they don't
 even know about.

 George Fletcher wrote:

 I think relying party sites that support OpenID could do more to make it
 clear on their home pages that they support OpenID (as often it's hidden
 behind another click). This could be as simple as some link tags that
 advertise support for OpenID. Maybe a link to the XRDS doc describing
 the services of the site. Then the identity agent can discover the
 relying party OpenID return_to endpoint and log the user in directly.
 Can be used to solve a phishing problem and makes the experience easy
 for the user.

 Some related thoughts 
http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/clients-to-rescue.html

 http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/passive-identity-meta-system-
 markup.html
 

 George, I read your two posts with great interest...and then noticed that
 they were last summer!

 You are a man ahead of your time.

 Where has discussion of your IDMML gone since your posts?

 =Drummond
Unfortunately, not as far as I'd like :(  I've not been able to get back 
to the ideas and take them farther. With the other things that have 
happened in the last 6 months there are needed revisions. Maybe this 
could be a discussion at IIW (if there is enough interest)?

At the time there was less consensus around XRDS as a service 
description/meta-data markup. With that changing, the time is better 
to move this forward. I suspect there are significant synergies with 
what Peter hinted at in the work with XRDS, IDP Discovery, and SAML. It 
would be great if identity agents could be the glue that binds the 
different identity systems together for the user (until we on the 
technology side get closer to real convergence:).

Thanks,
George
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs


Re: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)

2008-04-02 Thread Chris Drake
Hi Drummond,

I pushed hard for RP identification for 2 or 3 months back around
October 2006.  If anyone wants to go back through the archives,
there's a pile of other important reasons to have some way that an IdP
and/or browser agent can identify an OpenID-enabled site.  The antique
thread below lists a few.  My proposal too was a link tag.

Kind Regards,
Chris Drake


Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 12:51:15 I, you wrote:

CD Hi Johannes,

CD I proposed a solution to the single sign out problem a month or two
CD ago.

CD In fact - a whole range of solutions have been proposed, and relative
CD merits of all discussed already - does anyone have the free time to go
CD back over the postings, extract all the knowledge  contributions, and
CD document them all?

CD To summarize my proposal - I was seeking a standardized OpenID RP
CD endpoint interface into which I (as an IdP) or a software agent (eg: a
CD browser plugin) could post user information - be this a login
CD request, email change request, log-out request, account signup,
CD account cancelation, or whatever.  My preferred implementation was a
CD LINK tag placed on (and thus identifying) a login page, and within
CD the link tag, the endpoint of the RP for accepting IdP(OP/agent)
CD input.

CD Kind Regards,
CD Chris Drake


CD Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 1:04:44 PM, you wrote:

JE I continue to believe that we need single-sign-out
JE functionality, in particular once OpenID moves up the stack for
JE higher-value transactions.


JE Some people have made the case that that is undesirable
JE and/or impossible; I beg to differ.


JE Having automatic authentication against the IdP is quite
JE similar to not having a password on the identity at all, in that
JE it reduces the confidence that we know the real-world identity of
JE the entity/user at the other end. In my view, there's nothing
JE wrong with that, but we do need to be able to convey that to
JE relying parties in a way that cannot be easily attacked.





JE On Nov 6, 2006, at 16:41, Joshua Viney wrote:

JE One question re: User Experience and single-sign-on comes to mind:


JE How do we treat users who are accessing their IdP and
JE Relying Parties via public computers?


JE Use Case:
JE Good User at public library wants to leave a comment on Blog X
JE Blog X requires the person to authenticate via OpenID
JE Good User enters their OpenID and successfully authenticates
JE via email and password (or whatever) (and authorizes the RP
JE ('realm' in 2.0) if necessary) at their IdP
JE Good User is redirected to Blog X signed in
JE Good User leaves comment
JE Good User signs out of Blog X (if sign out is even an option)
JE Good User then leaves the public library and goes shopping
JE Evil User jumps on computer and proceeds to leave comments at
JE any number of OpenID enabled blogs using Good User's OpenID (he
JE saw it while looking over Good User's shoulder, or he checks any
JE sites that Good User did NOT sign out of that might display his
JE OpenID)
JE Evil User, uses Good User's signed in IdP session to sign into any number 
of sites, etc


JE Outcome: Good User's reputation is ruined and his/her OpenID
JE is banned from a whole list of Relying Parties. Good User then
JE blames their IdP, the Relying Parties and OpenID as a technology
JE and tells everyone he/she knows not to use it blogs about it and
JE initiates a press release.


JE It may be easy to pass this off as an implementation specific
JE issue or as user error, but this use case is somewhat likely for
JE 2 reasons:


JE 1. A user's OpenID URI is not necessarily a private thing
JE (obscurity is not security anyway)
JE 2. Users will be at least 1 site removed from their IdP while
JE accessing a Relying Party, and no one is use to signing out twice
JE 3. It is very very likely that IdP's will use some type of remember me 
functionality


JE One solution to consider would be a global sign-out feature
JE on relying party sites that signs users out of their IdP as well.
JE Another solution would be to make very specific recommendations
JE about messaging users who may be using public computers.






JE Josh Viney
JE http://www.eastmedia.com -- EastMedia
JE http://identity.eastmedia.com -- OpenID, Identity 2.0








JE ___
JE user-experience mailing list
JE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JE http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience










Kind Regards,
Chris Drake,
=1id.com


Thursday, April 3, 2008, 4:38:13 AM, you wrote:

  Dick Hardt wrote:
 
  :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be
  done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy
  for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user
  click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then
  any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not
  expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that
  awareness is higher, having it built 

RE: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)

2008-04-02 Thread Drummond Reed
Chris, I remember that well, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense. I
think when this is combined with George's concept of the other ways in which
a local identity agent can assist the use, then IDMML really starts to gain
some legs.

See also my reply to George.

=Drummond 

 -Original Message-
 From: Chris Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:30 PM
 To: Drummond Reed
 Cc: 'George Fletcher'; 'Dick Hardt'; specs@openid.net
 Subject: Re: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
 
 Hi Drummond,
 
 I pushed hard for RP identification for 2 or 3 months back around
 October 2006.  If anyone wants to go back through the archives,
 there's a pile of other important reasons to have some way that an IdP
 and/or browser agent can identify an OpenID-enabled site.  The antique
 thread below lists a few.  My proposal too was a link tag.
 
 Kind Regards,
 Chris Drake
 
 
 Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 12:51:15 I, you wrote:
 
 CD Hi Johannes,
 
 CD I proposed a solution to the single sign out problem a month or two
 CD ago.
 
 CD In fact - a whole range of solutions have been proposed, and relative
 CD merits of all discussed already - does anyone have the free time to go
 CD back over the postings, extract all the knowledge  contributions, and
 CD document them all?
 
 CD To summarize my proposal - I was seeking a standardized OpenID RP
 CD endpoint interface into which I (as an IdP) or a software agent (eg: a
 CD browser plugin) could post user information - be this a login
 CD request, email change request, log-out request, account signup,
 CD account cancelation, or whatever.  My preferred implementation was a
 CD LINK tag placed on (and thus identifying) a login page, and within
 CD the link tag, the endpoint of the RP for accepting IdP(OP/agent)
 CD input.
 
 CD Kind Regards,
 CD Chris Drake
 
 
 CD Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 1:04:44 PM, you wrote:
 
 JE I continue to believe that we need single-sign-out
 JE functionality, in particular once OpenID moves up the stack for
 JE higher-value transactions.
 
 
 JE Some people have made the case that that is undesirable
 JE and/or impossible; I beg to differ.
 
 
 JE Having automatic authentication against the IdP is quite
 JE similar to not having a password on the identity at all, in that
 JE it reduces the confidence that we know the real-world identity of
 JE the entity/user at the other end. In my view, there's nothing
 JE wrong with that, but we do need to be able to convey that to
 JE relying parties in a way that cannot be easily attacked.
 
 
 
 
 
 JE On Nov 6, 2006, at 16:41, Joshua Viney wrote:
 
 JE One question re: User Experience and single-sign-on comes to mind:
 
 
 JE How do we treat users who are accessing their IdP and
 JE Relying Parties via public computers?
 
 
 JE Use Case:
 JE Good User at public library wants to leave a comment on Blog X
 JE Blog X requires the person to authenticate via OpenID
 JE Good User enters their OpenID and successfully authenticates
 JE via email and password (or whatever) (and authorizes the RP
 JE ('realm' in 2.0) if necessary) at their IdP
 JE Good User is redirected to Blog X signed in
 JE Good User leaves comment
 JE Good User signs out of Blog X (if sign out is even an option)
 JE Good User then leaves the public library and goes shopping
 JE Evil User jumps on computer and proceeds to leave comments at
 JE any number of OpenID enabled blogs using Good User's OpenID (he
 JE saw it while looking over Good User's shoulder, or he checks any
 JE sites that Good User did NOT sign out of that might display his
 JE OpenID)
 JE Evil User, uses Good User's signed in IdP session to sign into any
 number of sites, etc
 
 
 JE Outcome: Good User's reputation is ruined and his/her OpenID
 JE is banned from a whole list of Relying Parties. Good User then
 JE blames their IdP, the Relying Parties and OpenID as a technology
 JE and tells everyone he/she knows not to use it blogs about it and
 JE initiates a press release.
 
 
 JE It may be easy to pass this off as an implementation specific
 JE issue or as user error, but this use case is somewhat likely for
 JE 2 reasons:
 
 
 JE 1. A user's OpenID URI is not necessarily a private thing
 JE (obscurity is not security anyway)
 JE 2. Users will be at least 1 site removed from their IdP while
 JE accessing a Relying Party, and no one is use to signing out twice
 JE 3. It is very very likely that IdP's will use some type of remember
 me functionality
 
 
 JE One solution to consider would be a global sign-out feature
 JE on relying party sites that signs users out of their IdP as well.
 JE Another solution would be to make very specific recommendations
 JE about messaging users who may be using public computers.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JE Josh Viney
 JE http://www.eastmedia.com -- EastMedia
 JE http://identity.eastmedia.com -- OpenID, Identity 2.0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JE ___
 JE user-experience 

RE: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)

2008-04-02 Thread Drummond Reed
  George Fletcher wrote:
 
  I think relying party sites that support OpenID could do more to make
 it
  clear on their home pages that they support OpenID (as often it's
 hidden
  behind another click). This could be as simple as some link tags that
  advertise support for OpenID. Maybe a link to the XRDS doc describing
  the services of the site. Then the identity agent can discover the
  relying party OpenID return_to endpoint and log the user in directly.
  Can be used to solve a phishing problem and makes the experience easy
  for the user.
 
  Some related thoughts 
 http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/clients-to-rescue.html
 
  http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/passive-identity-meta-system-
  markup.html
 
  Drummond wrote:
  George, I read your two posts with great interest...and then noticed
 that
  they were last summer!
 
  You are a man ahead of your time.
 
  Where has discussion of your IDMML gone since your posts?
 
 George wrote:
 Unfortunately, not as far as I'd like :(  I've not been able to get back
 to the ideas and take them farther. With the other things that have
 happened in the last 6 months there are needed revisions. Maybe this
 could be a discussion at IIW (if there is enough interest)?
 
 At the time there was less consensus around XRDS as a service
 description/meta-data markup. With that changing, the time is better
 to move this forward. I suspect there are significant synergies with
 what Peter hinted at in the work with XRDS, IDP Discovery, and SAML. It
 would be great if identity agents could be the glue that binds the
 different identity systems together for the user (until we on the
 technology side get closer to real convergence:).

George, I agree that several things have evolved which could make an IDMML
practical now. Seems like a very good topic for IIW. I just put it on the
list of proposed sessions:

http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Proposed_Topics_2008a 

=Drummond 

___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs