A charter proposal for the WG already exists. On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM, David Recordon<da...@sixapart.com> wrote: > Should this experimental namespace only apply to work being done by OpenID > working groups? I'm very supportive of pushing the standards forward via > prototypes, but that should be done as part of the OpenID community instead > of by a single company. > > I'd be very happy to help get a discovery working group spun up and charter > them to modernize OpenID 2.0's discovery process. > > --David > > On Jul 10, 2009, at 11:58 AM, George Fletcher wrote: > >> +1 to http://experimental.openid.net >> >> It would be good to add this to the "repository" work Breno and John are >> doing as having a registry for experimental URIs would be good as well. >> >> Thanks, >> George >> >> Dirk Balfanz wrote: >>> >>> [+gene...@openid.net <mailto:gene...@openid.net> for a broader audience] >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balf...@google.com >>> <mailto:balf...@google.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> Google would like to launch a feature in which we're allowing our >>> Google Apps hosted domains to become OpenID providers. The >>> authentication part of it is pretty simple - Google is already >>> logging in users to their apps, so we can also host an OP endpoint >>> for those domains and send assertions back to Relying Parties. >>> What is more difficult is the discovery part. We have been working >>> with the XRI TC to define a XRD-based discovery protocol that >>> would allow this kind of hosting of discovery documents on behalf >>> of our customers. >>> We believe that providing proof-of-concept implementations drives >>> standardization processes forward, so in this spirit we want to >>> launch this feature in the near future, using a discovery protocol >>> that as far as we can tell meets all the requirements of what the >>> XRI TC is currently converging on, but which has not been vetted >>> as an official standard (it's a chicken and egg thing - without >>> PoC no standards, without standards by definition no >>> standards-compliant implementations). >>> >>> While we were tossing around ideas >>> <http://markmail.org/message/ixc5led2lobdwij2>in the >>> standardization committees we just used random identifiers for new >>> XML namespaces, etc. that we would need for this discovery >>> protocol. Now that we're about to launch we need to decide what to >>> call these things. We would like to use a namespace >>> in http://specs.openid.net/... because we want this kind of >>> discovery protocol to be part of OpenID, but we can't really use >>> them because we don't have a next-generation discovery protocol yet. >>> So what should we use? How >>> about http://experimental.openid.net/... ? That way, Relying >>> Parties know that what we're trying to do is be a part of the >>> OpenID community and bring the protocol forward. On the other >>> hand, this would also be a signal to the RP that they're using a >>> feature that has not been vetted as a standard yet. >>> For example, a discovery document for a domain balfanz.net >>> <http://balfanz.net> at Google might look like this (notice the >>> "experimental" namespace and the XML elements using it): >>> >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >>> <xrds:XRDS xmlns:xrds="xri://$xrds" xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)"> >>> <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";> >>> <ds:SignedInfo> >>> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod >>> Algorithm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/2009/01#canonicalize-raw-octets"; >>> /> >>> <ds:SignatureMethod >>> Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"; /> >>> </ds:SignedInfo> >>> <ds:KeyInfo> >>> <ds:X509Data> >>> <ds:X509Certificate> >>> MIICgjCCA... >>> </ds:X509Certificate> >>> <ds:X509Certificate> >>> MIICsDCCAhmgAwIB... >>> </ds:X509Certificate> >>> </ds:X509Data> >>> </ds:KeyInfo> >>> </ds:Signature> >>> <XRD> >>> <CanonicalID>balfanz.net <http://balfanz.net></CanonicalID> >>> <Service priority="0"> >>> <Type>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server</Type> >>> <Type>http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0</Type> >>> <Type>http://specs.openid.net/extensions/pape/1.0</Type> >>> <URI>https://www.google.com/a/balfanz.net/o8/ud?be=o8</URI> >>> </Service> >>> <Service priority="0" >>> xmlns:experimental="http://experimental.openid.net/google/2009/07/xmlns/";> >>> <Type>http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby</Type> >>> <MediaType>application/xrds+xml</MediaType> >>> >>> <experimental:URITemplate>https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri={%uri} >>> >>> <https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri=%7B%uri%7D></experimental:URITemplate> >>> <experimental:NextAuthority>hosted-id.google.com >>> <http://hosted-id.google.com></experimental:NextAuthority> >>> </Service> >>> </XRD> >>> </xrds:XRDS> >>> >>> What do you guys think? >>> >>> Dirk. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> specs mailing list >>> specs@openid.net >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> specs mailing list >> specs@openid.net >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > gene...@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general >
-- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
