[Openid-specs-ab] MTI section in Messages Draft 15

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Jan 30 17:07:16 UTC 2013

Interesting.  The point of the Request Object is to give RPs control over the information they're asking for and receiving.  For instance, if all my RP wants is your first name and the Request Object isn't supported, it would have to use "openid profile" to get your first name, which also comes with middle name, last name, full name, nickname, preferred_username, profile URL, picture URL, website URL, gender, birthdate, time zone, locale, and time last updated.  That seems like overkill and doesn't minimize disclosure of information to the RP.

But I understand the simplicity/minimality argument for your position.

Let's make this a discussion topic on tomorrow's call.

                                                            -- Mike

From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:40 AM
To: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] MTI section in Messages Draft 15

I refer to the material in http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-messages-1_0.html#ImplementationConsiderations

We've been discussing this at some length and probably would not ship a OP conforming to this draft, because our plans do not include support for OpenID Request Objects.  It seems perfectly possible to implement an Internet-scale federated-login system with good interoperability, security, user-experience, and developer-experience properties, entirely without the use of Request Objects.

Given this, why are they considered essential for the MTI section?  Absent Request Objects, our chances of shipping a conforming OP are pretty good.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130130/ef0c7291/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list