[PROPOSAL] Handle "http://user at example.com" Style Identifiers

Wed Nov 8 23:00:37 UTC 2006

You can make things complex in two ways, one is by adding too many
curlicues to a design, another is by refusing to use the deployed
infrastructure for its intended purpose.

The signaling and discovery infrastructure of the Internet is the DNS.

I have seen so many attempts to reinvent it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Recordon, David 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:50 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; David Fuelling
> Cc: specs at openid.net; general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle "http://user@example.com" 
> Style Identifiers
> 
> Involving DNS seems to make this too complex.  If we're going 
> to involve DNS, we might as well re-architect Yadis to use it 
> as yet another discovery option.
> 
> --David 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net 
> [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:37 PM
> To: David Fuelling
> Cc: specs at openid.net; general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle "http://user@example.com" 
> Style Identifiers
> 
> Please don't map to Http this way.
> 
> It would be fine to define a fixed mapping from a user 
> identifier to http. But it has to respect the http scheme 
> design and be crafted to avoid operability concerns.
> 
> http://example.com/user would be acceptable as meeting the 
> scheme design. It is absolutely critical to maintain 
> left/right hierarchy.
> 
> The username/password pieces in http were not well thought 
> out and may have to be eliminated.
> 
> 
> The scheme I would propose would incorporate a policy lookup 
> so that it is possible to overide this mapping. The mapping 
> to http is fine as a last resort but making it the first 
> resort means we cannot ever change it.
> 
> What I would suggest is that we resolve user at example.com as follows
> 
> 1) Perform a DNS lookup for a TXT record at _openid.example.com
> 	if found perform policy processing
> 
> 2) map the uri to http://example.com/user, do OpenID
> 
> 
> Policy processing:
> 
> The TXT record consists of a sequence of tag=value pairs that 
> list the authentication protocols that are supported. This 
> allows the relying party to choose the most appropriate 
> protocol for its needs.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "SAML=saml.example.com SAMLLite=saml.outsourced.com OPENID"
> 
> This says that the identity provider supports three different 
> authentication protocols, SAML, a reduced SAML and OPENID.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Fuelling [mailto:sappenin at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:56 PM
> > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> > Cc: specs at openid.net; general at openid.net
> > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle "http://user@example.com" 
> > Style Identifiers
> > 
> > Hi Philip,
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand "Please don't use HTTP this way".  
> > 
> > I was suggesting that the user enter an email address.  The RP then 
> > maps the email address to a URL (which would be in the 
> proper scheme).
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker at verisign.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:45 PM
> > > To: David Fuelling; specs at openid.net
> > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle "http://user@example.com" Style 
> > > Identifiers
> > > 
> > > Please don't use HTTP this way. That is not the semantics
> > for http URLs.
> > > 
> > > A better scheme would be to use mailto:user at example.com or
> > to define
> > > openid:user at example.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There are two issues here:
> > > 
> > > 1) The user presentation of the identifier
> > > 2) The machine presentation
> > > 
> > > The two do not need to be the same. www.cnn.com works
> > perfectly well
> > > as a way to locate CNN. That is a perfectly acceptable user 
> > > presentation. It is not an acceptable machine presentation and 
> > > browsers SHOULD NOT accept href="www.cnn.com".
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: specs-bounces at openid.net
> > > > [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of David Fuelling
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:40 PM
> > > > To: specs at openid.net
> > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle "http://user@example.com"
> > > > Style Identifiers
> > > >
> > > > Please see my questions/ideas enclosed...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > David Fuelling
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: specs-bounces at openid.net
> > [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net]
> > > > > On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
> > > > > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 1:04 AM
> > > > > To: 'Recordon, David'; specs at openid.net
> > > > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Handle 
> "http://user@example.com" Style 
> > > > > Identifiers
> > > > >
> > > > > There have been several long threads in the past about
> > using email
> > > > > addresses as OpenID identifiers. The conclusion each time
> > > > has been to
> > > > avoid it. I don't remember all the arguments, but among 
> them are:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Privacy: the last thing many users want to give a website
> > > > is their
> > > > > email address.
> > > >
> > > > This seems reasonable at first glance.  However, almost every 
> > > > website I have a login with (today) requests my email 
> address so 
> > > > that the site can communicate with me electronically.
> > > >
> > > > So, if email addresses WERE used as an additional "login
> > input" for
> > > > OpenId, a user who didn't want to use his/her email
> > address to login
> > > > could always just use an IdP URL or XRI instead (as they
> > can today).
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing the privacy concern here?
> > > >
> > > > > * Reassignability: email addresses are not only
> > > > reassignable, but for
> > > > > some domains, they are notoriously short-lived identifiers.
> > > >
> > > > Is this really such a problem?  It seems to exist for
> > URL's in the
> > > > current protocol proposal anyway.  For instance, most
> > people don't
> > > > own a Domain, which means they'll be using OpenID URL's that 
> > > > somebody else owns.  Thus, URL's are reassignable too, 
> and suffer 
> > > > from this in the same way (although I don't really see 
> this as a 
> > > > problem).
> > > >
> > > > > * Non-portability: unless you own the top-level domain, they 
> > > > > aren't portable.
> > > >
> > > > Again, is this a problem if the email isn't the actual
> > identifier?  
> > > > If we have a means of mapping an email to an OpenID 
> Identity URL, 
> > > > then if the email goes away (is transferred or otherwise
> > not in the
> > > > control of the original user), then what's the problem?
> > > >
> > > > Point 1.) Losing an email address is no different than the case 
> > > > where a URL is lost/transferred/goes away.
> > > >
> > > > Point 2.) If a user "lost" his email address, theoretically the 
> > > > owner of the email address (example.com, e.g.) would remove the 
> > > > mapping from beth at example.com to beth's Identity Provider URL.
> > > >
> > > > Point 3.) Even if the email address domain owner failed 
> to remove 
> > > > this mapping, only the end-user (beth in this case) would
> > be using
> > > > the email to login.  Presumably, if she switched email 
> addresses, 
> > > > she would use her new address to login, and it wouldn't matter.
> > > > Somebody else trying to use her email address would need
> > to login to
> > > > the IdP, and presumably be stopped there.
> > > >
> > > > > Food for thought...
> > > > >
> > > > > =Drummond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > specs mailing list
> > > > specs at openid.net
> > > > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
> 
> 