[Openid-specs-ab] Some comments on OpenID 2.0 to OpenID Connect Migration spec

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 02:21:40 UTC 2014


So, how many I-Brokers are there now? 

=nat via iPhone

Aug 28, 2014 10:20、John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> のメッセージ:

> In principal that is what we created the JRD for in the XRI WG. 
> 
> The question is more what NuStar is doing with the transition to cloud names and what roll Connect will have for whatever replaces iBrokers. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Edmund Jay <ejay at mgi1.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Shouldn't iss and sub contain values from the OpenID Connect provider? Unless, of course the OpenID Connect provider is https://xri.net
>> 
>> XRI resolution returns the OpenID 2.0 provider that is configured by the i-name owner.
>> 
>> So in regards to the spec, we need to determine whether it's possible to get the OpenID Connect iss from a GET request to https://xri.net/(some i-name) with an Accept header of application/json.
>> 
>> If not, then we need to think of another scheme for verification of XRI OpenID 2.0 Identifiers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
>> To: Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello at gmail.com>; Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> 
>> Cc: "openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net" <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Some comments on OpenID 2.0 to OpenID Connect Migration spec
>> 
>> I suspect that the “iss” would be https://xri.net and the “sub” would be the i-number, such as “=!91F2.8153.F600.AE24”.
>>  
>> I guess the real question we haven’t explicitly asked is whether xri.net can/will become an OpenID Connect provider – which is what would make migration possible.  What are your thoughts on this, Markus?
>>  
>>                                                             -- Mike
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> From: Markus Sabadello [mailto:markus.sabadello at gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:50 AM
>> To: Nat Sakimura
>> Cc: Mike Jones; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Some comments on OpenID 2.0 to OpenID Connect Migration spec
>>  
>> Yes to me it feels right to just say that openid2_id is the OpenID 2.0 Claimed Identifier.
>> What I don't fully understand yet is whether in the OIDC world the Authorization Endpoint would be hosted 1. at https://xri.net/some/path, or 2. individually by the i-brokers.
>> If 1., then for the migration spec I think no discovery step would be needed, since the issuer would always be https://xri.net anyway, no?
>> What would the "iss" and "sub" fields be for an ID token issued for an XRI?
>> 
>> Markus
>>  
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Having said that, it is probably better to have the canonical XRI itself in the openid2_id. 
>> Note though, Canonical ID only exists for XRI. In all other cases, it is the Verified Claimed ID. 
>> In XRI's case, the value of the Canonical ID is used as the verified Claimed Identifier. 
>> So, in general, just stating that openid2_id is OpenID 2.0 Identifier suffices. 
>>  
>> We would however have to add text to the discovery portion. 
>>  
>> In http(s) case, there is no change. 
>> For XRI case, it has to be prefixed by https://xri.net/. 
>>  
>> My question to Markus at this point is how realistic that xri.net will implement this feature. 
>> Do you have any idea? 
>>  
>> Nat
>>  
>> 2014-08-26 0:31 GMT+09:00 Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>:
>>  
>> That would actually complicate 90% of the cases where openid2_id is a http(s) URI. 
>> And I probably was a bit sleepy when I wrote the last response. 
>> It is not xri://xri.net/ obviously. 
>> I meant https://xri.net/ etc. so that the discovery process would be uniform to the RPs. 
>>  
>> 2014-08-25 23:44 GMT+09:00 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>:
>>  
>> I prefer the alternative that Markus is suggesting, in which we always use the OpenID 2.0 canonical identifier as the openid2_id claim value.  In fact, I would consider adding his example, in which this claim value is shown:
>> "openid2_id": "=!91F2.8153.F600.AE24"
>>  
>> We should then describe how to prefix this value to perform discovery, rather than removing the prefix.
>>  
>>                                                             -- Mike
>>  
>> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:26 AM
>> To: Markus Sabadello
>> Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Some comments on OpenID 2.0 to OpenID Connect Migration spec
>>  
>> Thanks Markus, 
>>  
>> I created tickets based on these comments. 
>>  
>> This particular one is: https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/950/migration-te-4-xri-portion-needs-change-by
>>  
>> For the relying party, I think it would be relatively straight forward to strip xri:// from openid2_id if they stored XRI as pure CanonicalID and causes less confusion than trying to figure out the type of openid2_id by sniffing if it starts from "=" or "!" or "@" etc. 
>>  
>> This comment thus seem to imply that we should add some text in section 7, e.g., adding: 
>>  
>> If the OpenID 2.0 Identifier starts with xri://xri.net/ then the relying party MUST extract the Canonical XRI by stripping "xri://xri.net/" from the beginning of the OpenID 2.0 Identifier. 
>>  
>> What do you think? 
>>  
>> Nat
>>  
>> 2014-08-23 21:36 GMT+09:00 Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello at gmail.com>:
>> In section 4:
>> "For XRI, OpenID 2.0 Identifier MUST be created as https://xri.net/ concatenated with the user’s verified XRI without the xri:// scheme. "
>> The problem with this I think is that in OpenID 2.0, for an XRI the Claimed Identifier is the pure CanonicalID (I-Number), without https:// or xri:// scheme. For example, an RP might have =!91F2.8153.F600.AE24 as the Claimed Identifier (openid2_id) for a user in its database.
>> So I think in section 4, we should either not say anything specific at all about XRI, or say something like this:
>> 
>> "For XRI, OpenID 2.0 Identifier MUST be the content of the <CanonicalID> element, as specified in [OpenID.2.0]"
>> Then an example ID Token would be:
>> {
>>  "iss": "?? not sure",
>>  "sub": "?? not sure",
>>  "aud": "s6BhdRkqt3",
>>  "nonce": "n-0S6_WzA2Mj",
>>  "exp": 1311281970,
>>  "iat": 1311280970,
>>  "openid2_id": "=!91F2.8153.F600.AE24"
>> }
>> But then I can see that obtaining an "iss" as described in sections 2 and 6 won't work.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140828/d28c1981/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list