[Openid-specs-ab] Reserved member definitions

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Sep 21 20:22:38 UTC 2011

Disagree.  Complexity is the enemy of adoption, and adoption os essential.

We can talk about it on the call tomorrow.

-- Mike
From: John Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:59 PM
To: George Fletcher
Cc: Mike Jones; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Reserved member definitions

there is no namespace support in JSON.

Each claim request and response needs to be a URI containing the poco namespace.

For the aggregated claim example in Messages we should change the examples to be URI .  the short names are confusing and meaningless. should also be using URI for the claim request.

My point being that claim names MUST be unambiguous.   Given that aggregated claims may come from multiple sources.
So that would be the short reserved names, or URI if we want interoperability.   Aggregated claims MUST use URI.

That is my take on it.  We should fix the examples and make it clearer.

We currently have schema in 3.3.1 for the request.   Given the current spec if you passed in http://portablecontacts.net/ns/1.0 you might expect to get back the basic profile in portable contacts schema.   That was intended for backwards compatibility with existing endpoints rather than messing with the response.  I don't know if it is more trouble than it is worth.

On 2011-09-21, at 4:12 PM, George Fletcher wrote:

Hi John,

In looking at the most recent messages spec, it does not (at least in the userinfo section) discuss using claims with a namespace. Are you suggesting that the response
[The entire original message is not included.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110921/0df196f9/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list