[OpenID board] OIDF "OpenID Compliant" Program -- WAS: Perceptions of OpenID
sakimura at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 03:32:43 UTC 2009
For the details, I need to evaluate more, but it has been my opinion that
there should be this kind of program. This is also closely related to the
trademark issues, IMHO, and it is one of the thing the new board should
tackle very soon. Also, it has some consequences agains IPR policies. In
general, vendors would not like the fact that their product failed the test,
and that is very understandable. So, confidentiality type of IPR should be
needed to be defined.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:20 AM, David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com> wrote:
> One of the major concerns raised in Chris' blog centered around
> Interoperability -- (Summarizing): "*OpenID's don't work on all sites in
> the same way (if at all), and the Foundation isn't strong enough to make
> this happen, since OpenID is such a distributed idea, so users aren't likely
> to embrace OpenID*..."
> However, it seems like the OIDF could solve this problem by introducing an
> "OpenID Compliant" program, with a linkable Image that implementor's can
> advertise, and that end-users can click on, taking them to openid.net,
> with information about the particular implementer's "compliance" measurement
> -- e.g., "This RP/OP passed various automated openid.net tests with this
> particular score".
> Such a mechanism would be a useful debugging tool for openid implementors
> (OP's, RP's, and Libraries), and could be nice tool for end-users to both
> a.) figure out which OP supports openid the best, and 2.) See that a
> particular RP's openid implementation is broken, not the openid protocol
> The incentive would be for OP's and RP's to want to advertise the "seal",
> and thus to offer "working" versions of OpenId.
> Automatic Verification Process for RP
> 1. RP developer creates an account on openid.net, and clicks the
> "verify my RP" link.
> 2. Various info is collected from the developer, perhaps payment, and
> an RP URL that adheres to a certain set of "testing parameters" (i.e., a
> single login form with a standardized button name, etc, for testing purposes
> -- this would not be the actual login form, but would use the same
> libraries, and would allow for automated testing). Alternatively, the
> end-user could supply these button names to openid.net (enabling steps
> 3 and 4 below)
> 3. Openid.net-based software would simulate various OpenID logins, with
> the OP being served from the same domain as the claimed identifiers (i.e.,
> openid.net). This way, no real-world user interaction would be
> required to test the OpenID flow since user-agent an OP would be the same
> (for testing purposes).
> 4. Various extensions could be tested for support -- such as Sreg, AX,
> etc. Again, there would need to be a standard way for an HTTPClient
> (simulating a web-browser) to easily gather this data from the RP web-page
> for verification -- again, part of the verification process.
> Automated Verification/Testing for OP's would be similar, except the
> software running at openid.net would merely simulate an RP talking to the
> implementor's OP (and could also test for sreg, AX, etc).
> Such a verification process could require a series of standardized UX pages
> that would only be used for these tests (not used by actual
> customers/websites). Alternatively, more sophisticated software could allow
> the implementor to specify the name of key pieces required for the test
> (e.g., by button's name is "submitButton", etc).
> OpenId could even exercise these automated "test" pages periodically, to
> make sure that an RP/OP maintains protocol compatibility.
> Of course, this idea would require some custom software funded by the
> Foundation, but such a program would have a lot of benefits, especially from
> a marketing perspective (with a side-benefit of helping libraries and
> implementations become "compliant" and "interopable").
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>wrote:
>> I've just blogged about perceptions I've seen recently of OpenID in the
>> I think these are serious issues that we must think about and consider,
>> since many popular bloggers are only carrying negative stories about OpenID
>> (with good reason) lately. I think it's imperative that the marketing
>> committee ramp up its efforts to provide public domain case studies, stories
>> and regular news that can help highlight and promote the successes that
>> people are having with OpenID so that we can counter these negative
>> impressions and provide a more positive, balanced perspective on where we're
>> at with OpenID.
>> Chris Messina
>> Citizen-Participant &
>> Open Web Advocate-at-Large
>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
>> This email is: [X] bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the board