Re: [OpenID] Signing method for XRD

2009-06-12 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: [OpenID] Signing method for XRD

2009-06-11 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: [OpenID] Signing method for XRD

2009-06-11 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

OAuth Hybrid and UI ML?

2009-06-11 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Requiring Pseudonymous Identifier

2009-05-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
, 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

Re: Requiring Pseudonymous Identifier

2009-05-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Requiring Pseudonymous Identifier

2009-05-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Identifier for group of individulas

2009-05-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Identifier for group of individulas

2009-05-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: OpenID Security

2009-02-05 Thread Nat Sakimura
... -- 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

Re: OpenID Mobile Profile?

2009-01-31 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

OpenID Mobile Profile?

2009-01-29 Thread Nat Sakimura
. 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

Re: OpenID Mobile Profile?

2009-01-29 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: CX proposal update

2009-01-22 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

CX proposal update

2009-01-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form Discovery Working Group)

2009-01-11 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form Discovery Working Group)

2009-01-06 Thread Nat Sakimura
*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

Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group

2009-01-02 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Request for consideration of Working Group Charter Proposal

2008-12-19 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Request for consideration of Working Group Charter Proposal

2008-12-19 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Please process the WG proposals on the table (WAS The Specs Council and Process)

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: What is the status of AX 2.0 WG proposal?

2008-12-17 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: A Working Groups Wiki Page

2008-12-16 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-12-04 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: A Working Groups Wiki Page

2008-12-04 Thread Nat Sakimura
___ 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

Re: PC Insurance Carriers

2008-12-04 Thread Nat Sakimura
. ___ 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

Re: A Working Groups Wiki Page

2008-12-04 Thread Nat Sakimura
-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

Re: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-11-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-11-12 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-11-09 Thread Nat Sakimura
-- *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

Re: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-11-08 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-11-01 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-10-31 Thread Nat Sakimura
:[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

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

2008-08-13 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

2008-08-11 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Non-interactive logins

2008-07-16 Thread Nat Sakimura
-- 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

Re: Proposal to create the PAPE working group

2008-05-22 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: Login Federation

2008-02-20 Thread Nat Sakimura
___ 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

Re: Login Federation

2008-02-18 Thread Nat Sakimura
. 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

Re: OpenID 3.0

2008-02-04 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: XACML

2007-12-11 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

Re: [Idschemas] identity schema element metadata: using existingspecifications

2007-09-09 Thread Nat Sakimura
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

RE: Specifying identifier recycling

2007-05-31 Thread Nat Sakimura
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