OpenID violates Semantic Web (according to them)

This does not imply anything with regard to my own position on this matter but I figured people on this list might find the latest debate [1] over the W3C TAG httpRange-14 issue interesting. Basically according to the httpRange-14 decision, a URI cannot represent both a 'person' and an

Discovery spec draft published

This is the new discovery workflow proposed to replace Yadis. Feedback is welcomed on the www-t...@w3.org list or directly to me. Thanks, EHL --- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : HTTP-based Resource Descriptor Discovery

FW: I-D Action:draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth-00.txt

-Original Message- From: i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:30 PM To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is

Invitation to join the Metadata Discovery Coordination Group

Discussions about URI metadata discovery have been going on in many places for the past couple of years. This has been reaching its boiling point with the recent discussions between the W3C TAG, XRI TC, POWDER WG, the OpenID / Yadis, OAuth, Portable Contacts, XRDS-Simple, and OpenSocial

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

RE: handling of url redirection

This should be applied evenly to any of the redirect scenarios. OpenID specifies following redirects to find the final URI, while Yadis (as specified in XRI Resolution 2.0) calls to obey all HTTP rules (which includes redirects as well). EHL -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Service Key Discovery 1.0

At some point, we have to draw a line between the simple and enhanced solutions. There is baggage around XRI-related technologies, but it doesn't make sense to keep inventing new things just because people refuse to give it a chance. OpenID provides a simple way using HTTP requests. But once

OpenID Email Discovery

(The full story is posted at http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/01/addressing-open.html but this contains the technical parts of the post). This proposal adds Email Discovery allowing users to use their email address as an OpenID. ... We need to map between the email to the OpenID

Using dots in HTTP request parameters

I am part of the group working on the OAuth specification. Currently the OAuth protocol uses parameters prefixed with 'oauth_'. OpenId 2.0 uses 'openid.' as its prefix. I would like to change OAuth to use the same syntax as OpenID and prefix all parameters with 'oauth.'. OAuth is designed to work

RE: Differentiating between User Identifier and OP Identifier

The OpenID spec is not authoritative for what XRDS documents can or cannot contain; it just says how to consume them for the purposes of OpenID authentication. Point taken. As for the last few points, I now understand how all the little details from the various sections come together. I

RE: Differentiating between User Identifier and OP Identifier

Wow... this is a little too Da Vinci Code figuring this out form the spec... :-) Why not just write 'XRI is optional'? EHL -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Holsten Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:55 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav

RE: Using XRI Proxy Resolvers in OpenID discovery

The spec requires HTML discovery but not the other two, but users are expected to try their XRI identities not knowing what the RP will support. This is not correct. For URL identifiers Yadis and HTML discovery are both required for RPs: But that doesn't address my point about XRI

RE: Differentiating between User Identifier and OP Identifier

Thanks Johnny! In this case, it sounds like an XRDS document MUST no include both an OP Endpoint element and a Claimed Identifier element. I don't see this implied anywhere. Do you have a specific pointer or a clear reasoning for this? If an XRDS has both elements, the RP will try the

Typo section 8

Small typo in section 8 or draft 11: An association between the Relaying Parry and. I assume its Relaying Party. =eran ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

RE: Differentiating between User Identifier and OP Identifier

Thanks Johnny! It makes more sense now. Here are some further comments: I started to rewrite section 7 to make it easier to read but as I was going through it again and again, it became clearer. I think while all the terms are properly explained elsewhere, it might help to repeat some of them

RE: Using XRI Proxy Resolvers in OpenID discovery

: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:53 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Using XRI Proxy Resolvers in OpenID discovery Hi Eran, Not sure I follow what the question is? Should one use a proxy? Yes. Since it's unlikely any platform will support XRI resolution natively. Should the proxy

Differentiating between User Identifier and OP Identifier

discovery. What about HTML discovery? Also, is there a difference in the handling of an XRDS discovery depending on how it was attained (XRI or Yadis)? Also, should I be using / referencing a newer version of the 2.0 draft? Thanks, Eran Hammer-Lahav (=eran) Hueniverse, LLC http

OpenId as API authentication method

to ensure it is done in a secure manner (I will gladly contribute the text). Any thought are greatly appreciated, as well as letting me know this might not be the right place for such a discussion. Thanks, Eran Hammer-Lahav (=eran) Hueniverse, LLC http://hueniverse.com