RE: openid.delegate explained.

2006-10-03 Thread Drummond Reed
Brad, thanks much for posting this. Having spent a ton of time on identifier abstraction -- largely for the benefit of identifier portability -- I have enormous respect for this feature. So I am committed to being super-careful we don't break it just by renaming it. My proposal was limited to

RE: Re[4]: [PROPOSAL] authentication age

2006-10-04 Thread Drummond Reed
+1 to one key takeaway from this whole thread: that the marketing/evangelism/messaging around OpenID MUST be very careful to clearly communicate, in Gabe's words, what it can and cannot do right now. Especially when it comes to hard problems like authentication context and circles of trust that

RE: [PROPOSAL] Separate Public Identifier from IdP Identifier

2006-10-06 Thread Drummond Reed
+1. Josh is right. Ultimately there are three identifiers involved in all interactions between the User, the RP, and the IdP: 1) User-Presented-Identifier (UPI): the identifier entered by the User at the RP. 2) RP-Persisted-Identifier (RPI): the identifier that will be persisted by the RP in

RE: [PROPOSAL] Separate Public Identifier from IdP Identifier

2006-10-06 Thread Drummond Reed
+1 to Kevin's point here -- no second discovery step is needed with an XRI. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Turner Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:58 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Separate Public

RE: [PROPOSAL] bare response / bare request

2006-10-06 Thread Drummond Reed
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 16:34 -0700, Drummond Reed wrote: Let me play the dumb customer here and say: * A whole lot of real-world users would love OpenID-enabled bookmarks. * A whole lot of websites would love to offer them. * A whole lot of IdPs would love to provide them. Kevin Turner

Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-06 Thread Drummond Reed
At David's suggestion, to make it easier to follow, I've posted what I believe is a consolidated delegate proposal at: http://www.lifewiki.net/openid/ConsolidatedDelegationProposal This incorporates Josh's original, Martin's, Josh's amendment, and my amendment to Josh's. Josh and

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-09 Thread Drummond Reed
Message- From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:34 AM To: Drummond Reed; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal Ok, that makes it more clear. I think this line was part of what was throwing me, If Claimed Identifier is EITHER

RE: Delegation Proposal Amendment

2006-10-09 Thread Drummond Reed
, October 09, 2006 2:21 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: 'Josh Hoyt'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Delegation Proposal Amendment Drummond How does the RP get a persistent identifier before it has called the IdP? The user could type anything into the form. -- Dick On 6-Oct-06, at 2:22 PM, Drummond

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-09 Thread Drummond Reed
by an internal account name and not the i-name synonym they used at the RP -- then we can drop openid.display. =Drummond -Original Message- From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 2:19 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Recordon, David'; specs@openid.net

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
. =Drummond -Original Message- From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:38 AM To: Drummond Reed; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal In terms of openid.display, shouldn't the IdP greet the user in whatever manner it uses

RE: PROPOSAL: OpenID Authentication Flow and how delegate fits in

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
Dick, While I think I followed most of what you say here, I'm not sure what the exact proposal is. Are you proposing to remove the openid:delegate element in 2.0? And replace it with an indirect identifier request protocol (your step 3 below)? =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL

RE: XRI canonical id question

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
Johannes Ernst wrote: Drummond: The current auth draft says in section 11.4: If the Verified Identifier is an XRI, the discovered CanonicalID field from the XRD SHOULD be used as a key for local storage of information about the End User. Is there ever a scenario where the

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
Martin wrote: I'm surprised that our resident privacy advocates aren't making a bigger deal out of this. (If the privacy advocates have no problem then I'll let this go, since this isn't a use case I feel particularly strongly about myself.) Dick wrote: I was supportive of keeping the

RE: XRI canonical id question

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
On 10-Oct-06, at 11:00 AM, Drummond Reed wrote: Again, this is why I recommend RPs don't even store the i-name, but instead store their own display name for the user. The display name and the i-number (CanonicalID) never need to change, whereas an i-name may be reassigned. Dick

RE: XRI canonical id question

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:06 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: 'Martin Atkins'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: XRI canonical id question Ok, I think I get the justification now: i-numbers are in unlimited supply and have no inherent value except as a handle

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
Drummond wrote: If we've got it wrong there, and there is a way to do all of this with one parameter, by all means do explain and we can finally close this issue. Dick wrote: I thought I did explain it. :-) I will explain it again in a separate post. Better still, if you could add it

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
Drummond wrote: Better still, if you could add it to the end of http://www.lifewiki.net/openid/ConsolidatedDelegationProposal and explain how the same motivations and use cases currently covered there (using two identifier parameters) can be satisfied just using openid.identity,

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-10 Thread Drummond Reed
On 10/10/06, Dick Hardt wrote: [openid.rpuserid is the identifier] that the user gave the RP? Josh Hoyt wrote: For URL identifiers, it is the supplied identifer, normalized, after following redirects. In essence, it's the user's chosen identifier. For XRI identifers, it's the canonical ID

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 Drummond Reed
+1 to Josh's point. IMHO identifier portability is sacred. If anyone disagrees, please post, can we assume we have consensus on this? =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh Hoyt Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM To: Marius

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

RE: Delegation discussion summary

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
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 be misleading to suggest to end-users that they could

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

Use of i-numbers (was RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal)

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
Martin wrote: I think this is the intention, though it does show an interesting inconsistency between the use of XRIs and the use of i-numbers. I currently have three URL-based identifiers all pointing at the same server and the same Yadis document, yet those identifiers are distinct.

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,

Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
Yesterday we established consensus that with OpenID, identifier portability is sacred. Today I'd like to establish consensus on the following postulate: To achieve identifier portability in OpenID, it MUST be possible for the RP and the IdP to identify the user using two different identifiers:

RE: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-13 Thread Drummond Reed
Drummond wrote: To achieve identifier portability in OpenID, it MUST be possible for the RP and the IdP to identify the user using two different identifiers: an identifier by which the RP knows the user (the portable identifier), and an identifier by which the IdP knows the user (the

RE: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-14 Thread Drummond Reed
Chris, I totally agree that: a) OpenID Authentication 2.0 should support yours scenario of IdP-initiated login, and b) that this enables a whole range of privacy solutions, many of which can be supported by IdP innovation. If IdP-initiated login were the only use case, then only one identifier

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

2006-10-15 Thread Drummond Reed
Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and everywhere else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple concatenation of OpenID and service provider, so everyone gets it, but nobody will associate it with SAML or federation or anything else. -Original Message-

RE: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-16 Thread Drummond Reed
+1. Trust is not a boolean. Martin, that's very quotable. Can I attribute it to you? =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Atkins Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:25 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Identifier

RE: Summarizing Where We're At

2006-10-16 Thread Drummond Reed
My votes on three issues (0 on everything else): Consolidated Delegation Proposal * -1 on status quo (draft 10) * +1 on two-identifier Change default session type * +1 Bare request * +1 =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

RE: Re[2]: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-16 Thread Drummond Reed
identifier. So OpenID should accommodate both. =Drummond -Original Message- From: Chris Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:29 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: 'Martin Atkins'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re[2]: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue Hi Drummond

RE: Question: multiple IdPs?

2006-10-18 Thread Drummond Reed
In the directed identity case, the IdP URL or XRI you give to the RP resolves to your IdP's XRDS document. Each of your IdPs would have a different one. If they support directed identity, each would have a Service with a Type tag value of http://openid.net/identifier_select/2.0. This service

RE: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-18 Thread Drummond Reed
I don't think anything is missing from your previous posts, nor do I think you've missed anything from other's previous posts. I think we've discussed this issue thoroughly from all sides. As you say, It is a different way of thinking about what OpenID is doing. In other words, it's a worldview

RE: XRI confusion

2006-10-19 Thread Drummond Reed
Message- From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:26 AM To: Drummond Reed Cc: 'Recordon, David'; 'Martin Atkins'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: XRI confusion That provides clarity on the process, thanks. If the user knows that their i-name has been

RE: Yet Another Delegation Thread

2006-10-24 Thread Drummond Reed
, talking this over more with Josh and Drummond it doesn't actually accomplish all of the goals anyway. --David -Original Message- From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:04 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: Recordon, David; specs@openid.net Subject: Re

RE: Yet Another Delegation Thread

2006-10-25 Thread Drummond Reed
Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:07 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: 'Recordon, David'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Yet Another Delegation Thread Thanks for the explanation Drummond. I think we need a con call on this topic alone ... :-) On 24-Oct-06, at 6:16 PM

RE: Yet Another Delegation Thread

2006-10-26 Thread Drummond Reed
+1. In this whole discussion, I have three very strong views (which the editors can take as input into their call today): 1) If RP discovery reveals an IdP-specific identifier, the RP MUST send it to the IdP because that's what the IdP needs most to serve the user. 2) If the IdP receives an

RE: Editors Conference Call

2006-10-30 Thread Drummond Reed
Good job, editors! I look forward to reading the full spec draft when it comes out (though I'll be travelling, so it won't be until my flight back Friday night that I'll be able to do a detailed read-through.) =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: Making identities persistent?

2006-10-31 Thread Drummond Reed
Good answer, George. The question applies mainly to delegated identifiers (e.g., email addresses delegated under a specific DNS domain like [EMAIL PROTECTED], third-or-lower level domain names like user.aol.com, or community i-names such as @aol*user), since they are by definition assigned

RE: Making return_to Optional

2006-11-06 Thread Drummond Reed
David, in the message below, I assume you meant to say return_to is NOW an optional parameter... instead of return_to is NOT an optional parameter That's the only way I can make sense of it. Am I right? =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: Editors Conference Call)

2006-11-06 Thread Drummond Reed
I want to clear up what I believe are two misconceptions about the proposed terminology change (both in the specs and across all the OpenID educational/marketing materials) from Identity Provider (IdP) to OpenID Provider (OP). (Note that these are my personal views and may not be shared by others

Authentication Authority (was RE: IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: Editors Conference Call))

2006-11-07 Thread Drummond Reed
it -- just noting that the same software component in an actual deployment can be seen in various lights and have multiple names (roles!).) FWIW, Eve John Kemp wrote: Hi Drummond, Drummond Reed wrote: So why, indeed, is there so much interest in OpenID? I believe it's because

RE: OpenID.net Service Type Namespaces

2006-11-07 Thread Drummond Reed
My understanding is that the concern is with potential conflicts in the actual functioning of openid.net. Creating a clean DNS namespace for specs at specs.openid.net does seem like a good solution to me. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style Identifiers

2006-11-08 Thread Drummond Reed
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Watkins Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Handle http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Style Identifiers Recordon, David wrote:

IdP vs OP (WAS: RE: EditorsConference Call))

2006-11-09 Thread Drummond Reed
Drummond Reed wrote: Eve, Welcome, and thanks for delurking ;-) I'm fascinated by your suggestion that the SAML vocabulary includes the term authentication authority. I'd vote for the OpenID Authentication 2.0 specification (and the community at large) to adopt that term in a heartbeat

RE: [OpenID] OpenID Assertion Quality Extension - Draft

2006-11-30 Thread Drummond Reed
Avery, Paul's the one to weigh in on this option - he wrote (and lived) the book on SAML AuthN Context. But I do like the looks of what you proposed - seems very elegant. =Drummond _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avery Glasser Sent: Thursday,

RE: Questions on Protocol

2007-01-02 Thread Drummond Reed
Welcome, James. I have a special interest in this topic due to my work on XDI (XRI Data Interchange) at OASIS. I'm happy to help figure out how it can be applied here. +1 to Dick's suggestion to just keep the posts modular, i.e., short on-topic threads that can be discussed individually.

RE: [OpenID] Dumb Question: Why isn't http://xri.net/=bobwyman an OpenID?

2007-01-03 Thread Drummond Reed
Bob, it's a great question, and David's correct as far as he goes, and so is Johnny. However I suspect that the behaviour you're experiencing is due to older OpenID libraries being used by the RP site at which you're experiencing this behaviour. Here's why: if you entered your i-name =bobwyman in

RE: [OpenID] Dumb Question: Why isn't http://xri.net/=bobwyman an OpenID?

2007-01-04 Thread Drummond Reed
at the i-brokers. =Drummond _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Wyman Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:38 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: Recordon, David; openid-general; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: [OpenID] Dumb Question: Why isn't http://xri.net

RE: [OpenID] Dumb Question: Why isn't http://xri.net/=bobwyman an OpenID?

2007-01-04 Thread Drummond Reed
the issue Johnny brought up, and also properly support the use of multiple i-name (or HXRI) synonyms for the same i-number. =Drummond -Original Message- From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:34 PM To: Drummond Reed; Bob Wyman; openid

RE: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3

2007-01-04 Thread Drummond Reed
Just FYI, the xmldsig KeyInfo element is already part of the XRD schema because the XRI Resolution spec uses it in the SAML form of trusted XRI resolution. And either the SAML form or the HTTPS form of XRI trusted res can give you the security characteristics in the Key Discovery spec. That said,

RE: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3

2007-01-04 Thread Drummond Reed
: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:35 PM To: Drummond Reed; Carl Howells; Grant Monroe Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Key Discovery In DTP Draft 3 Oooh, interesting... So looking at working draft 10 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/17293

RE: Wiki page: Attempting to document the Email Address as OpenIddebate.

2007-02-10 Thread Drummond Reed
David, Great wiki page -- this is the kind of resource that really helps work through issues like this. On the issue itself, I need more time to think it through. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fuelling Sent: Saturday,

RE: Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

2007-02-28 Thread Drummond Reed
I've always been supportive of breaking out OpenID Discovery into a separate spec. I wouldn't break it out into separate specs, however, because discovery for any OpenID identifier has have much more in common than they have different. For example, they all need to explain the relationship of the

RE: Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

2007-02-28 Thread Drummond Reed
Martin Atkins wrote: My proposal is that we make the core Auth 2.0 spec scheme-agnostic. It would just state that an identifier is a URI. Later in the spec, where currently it enumerates a bunch of ways to do discovery, it'd just say do discovery on the URI using an appropriate protocol.

RE: Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

2007-02-28 Thread Drummond Reed
Martin Atkins wrote: Attached is a version of the current spec draft 11 with large chunks of the discovery/normalization stuff hacked out and replaced with generic see other specifications text. I think I may have deleted too much in that we've lost the detailed rules for dealing with XRDS

RE: Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery

2007-02-28 Thread Drummond Reed
Drummond Reed wrote: Under this approach, discovery all identifiers (URLs, XRI i-names/i-numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, etc.) would be handled by OpenID Discovery. Martin Atkins wrote: I disagree that a single spec can contain discovery rules for all conceivable discovery types

RE: Updated normalization section to match the upcoming XRI Syntax2.1.

2007-04-04 Thread Drummond Reed
Kevin Turner wrote: Sorry it took me a few months to notice this, but xri://$dns? No. I'm referring here to spec rev 274, the diff for which is attached. Can we roll that patch back, please? I'm not even sure where you're getting an XRI Syntax 2.1 reference from, there's not so much as a

RE: Moving AX Forward (WAS RE: SREG namespace URI rollback)

2007-04-04 Thread Drummond Reed
+1 to defining attribute identifier URIs/XRIs in the Identity Commons ID Schemas project. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Recordon, David Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:16 PM To: Johnny Bufu Cc: OpenID specs list Subject:

RE: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)

2007-04-10 Thread Drummond Reed
On 9-Apr-07, at 5:24 PM, Recordon, David wrote: Yes, I agree an upgrade path from SREG is needed. We could however do something as simple as http://openid.net/specs/openid-simple-registration- extension-1_0.html#ni ckname for the existing SREG fields. Dick wrote: by making this a

RE: in favor of allowing a fragment in a URI for metadata for anattribute type

2007-04-10 Thread Drummond Reed
+1 as well. Very well articulated. An interesting side note: XRI supports a # fragment for backward compatibility with URI/IRI syntax, but in practice its rarely used since XRI syntax is already polyarchical, i.e., any XRI can be put in the context of another XRI. # is just one such context

RE: HTML discovery: SGML entities and charsets

2007-05-23 Thread Drummond Reed
Peter Watkins wrote: snip My concrete suggestion: replace the current language Other characters that would not be valid in the HTML document or that cannot be represented in the document's character encoding MUST be escaped using the percent-encoding (%xx) mechanism described in [RFC3986].

RE: attribute exchange value encoding

2007-05-25 Thread Drummond Reed
Johnny Bufu wrote: While at IIW, I asked around what people thought about the encoding mechanisms we've added recently, in order to allow for transferring any data types. The consensus was that everyone would prefer something simpler and lighter. So I've rewritten the encoding section,

RE: Specifying identifier recycling

2007-05-30 Thread Drummond Reed
John Panzer wrote: Has there been a discussion about an extension to map to/from i- numbers via AX? If there were a generic attribute you could stuff an i- number or a hash of an internal ID in there to help solve the disambiguation problem. Alternatively it'd be nice to have a way to

RE: Specifying identifier recycling

2007-05-30 Thread Drummond Reed
Johannes: What about the point Dick posted earlier in this thread, that the problem with using a public key is if the private key gets compromised? Persistent identifiers need to persist independent of any attribute changing or being revoked. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL

Review of Yadis section in XRI Resolution 2.0 WD11

2007-05-30 Thread Drummond Reed
As discussed at IIW, the OASIS XRI TC is now moving swiftly to close and vote on the XRI Resolution 2.0 spec (which has been at the Working Draft 10 stage during the entire evolution of OpenID Authentication 2.0) so it can be referenced by OpenID Authentication 2.0 when it goes final. To that

RE: Review of Yadis section in XRI Resolution 2.0 WD11

2007-05-31 Thread Drummond Reed
-Original Message- From: Johnny Bufu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:52 PM To: Recordon, David Cc: Drummond Reed; OpenID specs list Subject: Re: Review of Yadis section in XRI Resolution 2.0 WD11 On 31-May-07, at 5:34 PM, Recordon, David wrote: I'd recommend adding

RE: Specifying identifier recycling

2007-06-03 Thread Drummond Reed
Johnny Bufu wrote: We did look at this (with Drummond) in December. The bottom line is that it can't be done easily - a mechanism similar to XRI's canonical ID verification would have to be employed, to confirm that the i- number actually 'belongs' to the URL on which discovery was

RE: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?

2007-06-08 Thread Drummond Reed
Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping provides. It doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID itself, i.e., it simply provides a way to map a reassignable URL or XRI to a persistent URL or XRI. Given the right practices, it solves both A and B. The

RE: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?

2007-06-08 Thread Drummond Reed
Dick Hardt wrote: Canonical IDs do not solve B. I would agree with that one. Obviously the XRI architecture assumption (not as radically decentralized as OpenID) makes that less of a problem in an XRI context. Of course, some would say that that assumption is a problem in itself.

RE: Do We Agree on the Problem We're Trying to Solve?

2007-06-08 Thread Drummond Reed
Drummond Reed wrote: Multiple, redundant identifiers is what canonical ID mapping provides. It doesn't require a master directory; it's as distributed as OpenID itself, i.e., it simply provides a way to map a reassignable URL or XRI to a persistent URL or XRI. Dick Hardt wrote

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

2007-09-10 Thread Drummond Reed
+1 to Nat's point about supporting virtual aggregation under user control. Chris, on the larger question you ask, the Data Sharing Summit was not about how others that have your data can share it, but rather about how you can control and share that data the way you want with whom you want. To be

RE: OpenID Email Discovery

2008-01-03 Thread Drummond Reed
Phillip, what do you mean by Until the IPR commitments necessary to allow that change are made there is no standard. The OASIS XRI TC has operated under a royalty-free IPR policy since the day it was formed (see the language in the charter, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/charter.php),

RE: Service Key Discovery 1.0

2008-01-21 Thread Drummond Reed
Masaki, Peter has a good point -- the XRDS keyinfo discovery mechanism, specified in section 10.2 (SAML Trusted Resolution) of XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 02 (http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/cd02/xri-resolution-V2.0-cd-02.pdf ), deals with DNS poisoning by using signed SAML

RE: Integration with Enterprise Directory Services

2008-01-23 Thread Drummond Reed
James, are you asking about the recommended format for saving an OpenID identifier in an LDAP directory? If so, I know Boeing has done some work in that area -- I can check with their directory guru. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

RE: Integration with Enterprise Directory Services

2008-01-24 Thread Drummond Reed
attribute. Figured OpenID in the next rev of the spec should talk more about implementation details. -Original Message- From: Drummond Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:57 PM To: McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT); specs@openid.net Subject: RE

RE: Integration with Enterprise Directory Services

2008-01-25 Thread Drummond Reed
+1. Since the results would apply to both URLs and XRIs, I expect several XRI TC members would be willing to help review such guidelines. =Drummond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Ehn Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 3:34 PM To:

RE: [OpenID] Problems with OpenID and TAG httpRange-14

2008-03-10 Thread Drummond Reed
-Original Message- From: Noah Slater [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:43 AM To: Drummond Reed Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: [OpenID] Problems with OpenID and TAG httpRange-14 Noah, you are in the right place (and the General list is the wrong place

RE: [OpenID] Problems with OpenID and TAG httpRange-14

2008-03-10 Thread Drummond Reed
mailing list suggesting this is something that needs attention on the call this week. =Drummond _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Fitzpatrick Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:01 AM To: Drummond Reed Cc: Noah Slater; specs@openid.net; [EMAIL

RE: [OpenID] Problems with OpenID and TAG httpRange-14

2008-03-10 Thread Drummond Reed
-Original Message- From: David Recordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:15 PM To: Drummond Reed; Brad Fitzpatrick Cc: Noah Slater; OpenID specs list; DeWitt Clinton Subject: Re: [OpenID] Problems with OpenID and TAG httpRange-14 I don't see why changes would really

Public Review of Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution V 2.0 - 15 day review

2008-03-10 Thread Drummond Reed
FYI - XRI Resolution 2.0 is now undergoing one more 15-day public review after incorporation of feedback from the previous 60-day public review in December and January. Links to both the change-marked and clean version of the spec are in the announcement below. =Drummond -Original

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

2008-04-02 Thread Drummond Reed
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

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

RE: This is user's URI for Assertion Quality Extension

2008-09-05 Thread Drummond Reed
Shade, here's the nut of the problem: directed identity in OpenID Authentication 2.0 means nothing more than: The user logging in to your site is not asserting the URI they have typed in; instead the OP will tell you the URI for the user. Then _any_ URI then returned from the OP *is* then the

RE: Proposal to create the TX working group

2008-11-08 Thread Drummond Reed
/ Signatures (XAdES) (ii) Proposers: Drummond Reed, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A) Henrik Biering, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Netamia (Denmark) Hideki Nara, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tact Communications (Japan) John Bradeley, [EMAIL PROTECTED], OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada

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

2009-01-04 Thread Drummond Reed
I'm just catching up on holiday mail and wanted to add another +1 to separation of Discovery from AuthN. The sooner the better. =Drummond _ From: specs-boun...@openid.net [mailto:specs-boun...@openid.net] On Behalf Of David Fuelling Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 8:47 AM To: Nat

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

2009-01-05 Thread Drummond Reed
Agreed that it makes sense to split it out when the underlying work (XRD 1.0) is ready. =Drummond _ From: David Recordon [mailto:drecor...@sixapart.com] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:24 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: sappe...@gmail.com; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley'; specs