Re: Changing Terminology (was RE: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary))

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
. :) --David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:43 PM To: 'Johannes Ernst'; specs@openid.net Subject: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary) Suggestion: sidestep the issue

IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary)

2006-10-15 Thread Drummond Reed
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johannes Ernst Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:37 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary We call it identity host at NetMesh. It's close enough to identity provider so people understand it quickly, but does

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-15 Thread Recordon, David
After re-reading this, other messages, and Dick's latest post, I strongly feel that we should make the change to support both the portable and IdP-specific identifiers within the protocol. The two most compelling reasons to me are that it has the fewest conceptual changes from OpenID Auth 1.x and

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-14 Thread Dick Hardt
Would you elaborate on those use cases? The current draft does not support this. -- Dick On 13-Oct-06, at 8:52 AM, Granqvist, Hans wrote: I can see potential use-cases where Alice doesn't want the idp to know what her portable URL is. This would not work if the protocol requires both as

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-14 Thread Scott Kveton
I would propose that the term Homesite be used when prompting the user to type in their IdP. I think the term Identity Provider is overloaded and not user friendly. As per my last email I feel the same way about identity provider as well ... I agree with Dick; too overloaded and not user

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-14 Thread Scott Kveton
I kinda get homesite, but I don't understand the thinking behind membersite: What is this site supposed to be a member of? It was a member of the network of sites running the protocol. Membersite sounds too much like you have to join some club to participate. I feel the same way about

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Marius Scurtescu
Of Josh Hoyt Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM To: Marius Scurtescu Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka delegated identifiers

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Martin Atkins
Drummond Reed wrote: +1 to getting it done. This area of terminology is more a usability/marketing issue at this point. I agree we need to converge on good, simple user-facing terms for describing OpenID in ways ordinary Web users can easily understand. Although I have great respect for

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary There is an established vocabulary, it should be used. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 09:04 PM Pacific Standard

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Recordon, David
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary +1 -Original Message- From: Drummond Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time To: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Marius Scurtescu' Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary +1

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Granqvist, Hans
I can see potential use-cases where Alice doesn't want the idp to know what her portable URL is. This would not work if the protocol requires both as per below. Can it be solved by sending a hash of the portable identifier? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
try to do so. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Granqvist, Hans Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:52 AM To: Josh Hoyt; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary I can see potential use-cases where Alice doesn't

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
But I suggest we move that terminology discussion to the marketing list. What marketing list? http://lists.iwantmyopenid.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing. =Drummond ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Granqvist, Hans
Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary Hans, This has come up a few times and the mapping between the portable identifier and the IdP-specific identifier is available in public XRDS documents. So there's no point in trying to hide that information from the IdP -- and it may even

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
Marius wrote: I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user and the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then there is no need to mention the IdP-specific identifier. Marius,

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Marius Scurtescu
On 13-Oct-06, at 12:20 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: Marius wrote: I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user and the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then there is no need to

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Drummond Reed
+1. Josh, you did a great job of not just distilling it down to the essence, but also nailing the right semantics for the underlying feature, which is identifier portability. Nice work. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Graves, Michael
Josh, et al, I believe the first of your options -- Both portable and IdP-specific identifiers -- is the superior choice here. It preserves OpenID 1 semantics, and unambiguously makes room for portable identifiers. I don't see the added burden carried by relying party code for this option viz.

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Gabe Wachob
: Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:00 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary Josh, et al, I believe the first of your options -- Both portable and IdP-specific identifiers -- is the superior choice here. It preserves OpenID 1 semantics, and unambiguously makes room

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Marius Scurtescu
On 12-Oct-06, at 10:29 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote: Both portable and IdP-specific identifiers -- Include both the portable identifier and the IdP-specific identifier in the request and response ([4]_ and [5]_):: openid.identity =

Re: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Josh Hoyt
On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka delegated identifiers) at all IMO. If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported for using a portable identifier, all IdPs will support it, so identifiers will

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Recordon, David
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary I'd have to agree with Gabe about this, let's get it done! :) -Original Message- From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 05:43 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Graves, Michael; specs@openid.net Subject: RE

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Drummond Reed
Scurtescu Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka delegated identifiers) at all IMO. If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-12 Thread Drummond Reed
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary +1 to getting it done. This area of terminology is more a usability/marketing issue at this point. I agree we need to converge on good, simple user-facing terms for describing OpenID in ways ordinary Web users can easily understand. Although I have