Appending a fragment at least will help the RP distinguish between identifiers. And in the short term it has the merit of not requiring any spec changes.
But I still would like to see a group membership claim kept separate from the identity claim, perhaps via the claim discovery I described in the other thread. -- 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 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 school class, friends, etc.) > > Please use this thread instead for this discussion. > > Just to put an context to the discussion, I can put one deployed > example of this type of identifier use. > > mixi, the largest Japanese SNS, is using the concept of "group identifier." > > For example, to prove you are a friend of mine, you can authenticate > with the identifier > > https://id.mixi.jp/nat/friend > > The verified identifier would be something like > https://id.mixi.jp/nat/friend#hashOfYourId etc., > if I rememer right. > > As you can see, it requires no change in the OpenID AuthN 2.0 nor an > extension. > > Anyways.. my 2c. > > =nat > > -- > 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
