http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
in computer science can be solved by adding a
level of indirection. This may well be one of those cases.
Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.
http://netmesh.info/jernst
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs
seeing something other
than XMLDSig, if the alternative is significantly for developers to generate
than XMLDSig.
Allen
Nat Sakimura wrote:
Hmmm.
Perhaps I did not spell my intent in the original mail well enough.
My question was:
(1) Is XML DSig easy enough for you developers to use?
(2
is the discussion being conducted right
now?
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
, as some of you
points out.
Regards,
=nat
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12-May-09, at 1:36 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
Reason for using RP's Subject in XRD instead of simply using realm is
to allow for something like group identifier.
would you elaborate
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:46 AM, SitG Admin
sysad...@shadowsinthegarden.com wrote:
Having two simultaneous threads on two closely related lists, with the same
subject line, can be confusing.
Right.
The original that I raised is what I have explained copule of hours ago.
It is the identifier
identifiers (i.e. the claims based models from
earlier in this thread) then it might make sense to look at a PAPE
extension that covers the type of identifier requested.
Thanks,
George
Nat Sakimura wrote:
Sorry for a slow response. This week is especially busy for me
defend to the
death
your right to say it. - Voltaire
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com
wrote:
My previous post on pseudonymous identifier seemed to have kicked off
interesting but orthogonal discussion of identifier for group of
individuals (like
Parties for display purposes.
This smells hugely of the idea that only one user controls an identifier at
a time.
--
Andrew Arnott
I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it. - Voltaire
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Nat Sakimura sakim
...
--
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 01:34:33 +0900
From: Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: OpenID Security
To: McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) james.mcgov...@thehartford.com
Cc: specs@openid.net
Message-ID:
bf26e2340902050834ybf1ae5ara6b97aaac28cd...@mail.gmail.com
case, back to your original question:
Are there poeple who are interested in discussing OpenID Mobile profile
sort of thing?
My answer would be Yes.
On Jan 29, 2009, at 22:14, Nat Sakimura wrote:
There are two issues involved.
1) URL length etc. limitations
2) User interface
1) has
.
SAML world has defined artifact binding to cope with it. IMHO, OpenID should
define something like that also.
In Japan, there are bunch of people (including mobile carriers) who wants to
do it.
Are there interest here as well?
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en
of the
protocol?
IMHO the most important question to ask for mobile devices is: can we do
without typing anything?
On Jan 29, 2009, at 16:56, Nat Sakimura wrote:
Hi.
Are there poeple who are interested in discussing OpenID Mobile profile
sort of thing?
Mobile phones has unique challenges
protected resources hosted by the user's OP (aka Service
Provider). It might make more sense to use the OpenID+OAuth hybrid protocol
along with an OAuth protected web service to exchange contract information.
Thanks
Allen
Nat Sakimura wrote:
I have edited the Contract Exchange Proposal
I have edited the Contract Exchange Proposal on the wiki.
http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1
It is substantially shorter and easier to parse, hopefully.
Please discuss.
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en
the authN
part of the spec is unlikely to change as much.
I am in favor of separating the two specifications and create a
2.0-compatible (with language clean-up) version of discovery.
2009/1/6 Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com:
But I suppose it is worthwhile to make the spec clearler
*To:* Drummond Reed
*Cc:* sappe...@gmail.com; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley'; specs@openid.net
*Subject:* Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form
Discovery Working Group)
I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in
OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out
broad scope contravenes the community's purpose. This is why I'm
really hoping that the proposal can be refined to something which will be
successful that a broad community can get behind!
--David
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Josh,
To which
Identity.
* Breno de Medeiros, br...@google.com. Google, Inc. (editor)
* Hideki Nara, hd...@ic-tact.co.jp, Tact Communications
* Nat Sakimura, n-sakim...@nri.co.jp (editor)
--
--Breno
+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT
I noticed a typo. Dick's mail address is not skip.com it is d...@sxip.com.
=nat
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 but where does the class in the earlier post of mine fits into in the
scope?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Breno de Medeiros br
believe, though the scope may seems a bit wide, the WG scope being
wider than what it really needs to is not a bad thing. WG can always narrow
the scope without any IPR consideration, but it is virtually impossible to
widen the scope afterwards.
=nat
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en
I am very interested in it, but have not heard about it for sometime.
What is the status right now?
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
easily in my addressbook.
I wanted to email to the entire spec council, really.
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
I could
start
on it -- sorry.
-- Dick
On 17-Dec-08, at 4:56 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
I am very interested in it, but have not heard about it for sometime.
What is the status right now?
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en
Thanks Dick!
I am looking forward to hear Go Ahead! from the spec council in a very
near future for CX WG.
=nat
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17-Dec-08, at 6:17 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
Hi.
Could you kindly update me of the status of CX WG
on and sign over only one class etc.
Could we add something like this to the scope as well?
=nat
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking foward to it!
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
Breno, if you have time
Added implication is that, by defining sreg class, we can effectively roll
sreg into AX.
=nat
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. I and Hide Nara was talking the other day that it probably would be
very useful for the AX to be able to define a class
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Nat Sakimura sakim...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Breno,
I am hoping that the core spec will define public key based signature.
If it is done, CX is going to use it.
Dsig thing in the CX proposal is there just for the sake if it did not
make
version of the charter proposal.
http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups:Contract_Exchange_1.0
Hope this one is finally acceptable.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Nat Sakimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have discussed with Dick at iiw to see if it is possible to build on AX.
It seems it is inevitable
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
.
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
-invent such
a scheme. Signature schemes are supposed to be somewhat generic, not
purpose-specific. We should try to specify only a few of them, and
probably the place to do that is the core OpenID spec.
2008/12/4 Nat Sakimura [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks David,
I have put the CX page onto
I was pointed out by Dick that Key Exchnage really should be Key
Discovery. I agree. So, I would do s/Key Exchange/Key Discovery/g.
Cheers,
=nat
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Nat Sakimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
Here is the modified version of the charter based on the discussion
Graves, [EMAIL PROTECTED], JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
Nat Sakimura, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nomura Research Institute,
Ltd.(Japan)
Robert Ott, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clavid (Switzerland)
Tatsuki Sakushima, [EMAIL PROTECTED], NRI America, Ltd. (U.S.A.)
Toru Yamaguchi, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cybozu Lab
--
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
] *On Behalf Of *Nat Sakimura
*Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 12:22 PM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Cc:* specs@openid.net
*Subject:* Re: Proposal to create the TX working group
Maybe just OpenID Trust
Maybe just OpenID Trust Extension just like WS-Trust?
=nat
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Nat Sakimura [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David,
I do not have any particular attachment to trust exchange. So, I am ok in
changing it but it would be nice if I can preserve TX acronym though. Do
you
Biering, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Netamia (Denmark)
Hideki Nara, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tact Communications (Japan)
John Bradeley, [EMAIL PROTECTED], OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)
Mike Graves, [EMAIL PROTECTED], JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)
Nat Sakimura, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nomura Research
:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Cyboze Lab
(Japan)
Editors:
Nat Sakimura, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nomura
Research Institute, Ltd.
(iii) Anticipated Contributions:
(1) Sakimura, N., et. al OpenID Trusted data eXchange Extention
Specification (draft), Oct. 2008. [TX2008]
http
Since PAPE needs more integrity in the message (otherwise, the whole
point of PAPE is lost), it would be ok to leave it just to OpenID 2.0
and make it an incentive to move to OpenID 2.0, IMHO.
=nat
Johnny Bufu wrote:
On 11/08/08 10:35 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
In that referenced section
Actially, that interpretation is not right. In draft 3, we have made
it clear.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008/08/12, at 2:35, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johnny Bufu wrote:
On 11/08/08 12:49 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
I notice that, like sreg, the pape extension is supporting 1.1 by
--
Anders Feder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
XDI.ORG Vice Chair
David Recordon, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Six
Apart Corporation
(iii) Anticipated Contributions: None.
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman
.
I have a few ideas I'd like to kick around if somebody isn't already
working on this. If so, please feel free to point me in the right
direction.
-Brett
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
--
Nat
Hi.
For
4. A way to indicate to the relying party what level of
authentication has occurred such as did the OP
check a password, how did it validate a user.
Without this, there is no way that a trust
model could be established in a credible way.
like it was mentioned before PAPE does
Hi James,
I am definitely interested in something like that.
It has been a long standing ToDo for me, though
currently, my focus is more on the reputation side
because I need it now for an implementation that we are
doing now (for enterprise use.)
Nat
Bill Washburn wrote:
Hi James--
Thanks
Hi,
Instead of having one single master copy at the IdP, I would prefer one
single piece of each information disparsed over the network (optionally
with opaque identifiers) and having IdP managing the links so that I
can control all the pieces from one place. I feel that having everything
at
Public key idea is somewhat attractive to me, but there are some issues that
comes up in my mind as well.
1) Storing many users' private key on the server in decryptable format is
not very safe.
In your proposal, it looks like that OP is going to hold the private key for
each user in
48 matches
Mail list logo
