backchannel/endpoint URLs, desired attributes
Peter Watkins
peterw at tux.org
Tue Dec 15 17:54:17 UTC 2009
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 06:35:18PM +0100, Chris Obdam wrote:
> In Holland we are going to work with the Attribute Exchange Validation Extension draft from tomorrow. The largest OP in Holland, Hyves (8 milion users) is going to support. We hope to find out what flaws there are in the current draft.
That is excellent news.
> We really need the meta data, verified_date. We are also trying to create a public list of validation method for each attribute.
> Have you looked into http://step2.googlecode.com/svn/spec/attribute_exchange_validate/trunk/openid-attribute-exchange-validate-mode.html?
Yes, I have, and have commented on that draft:
http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/2009-December/006189.html
Since there seems to be consensus regarding the importance of validation date,
I'll just paste my comments on the other concern I have with that draft:
2) The openid.ax.validation parameter purports to be about quality, but
the examples don't show the sort of options that Joseph A Holsten
suggested (Supplied by user vs. OP thinks this is the user's email vs.
the OP indemnifies the RP for any legal claims arising from the
assertion being false). The examples show RPs specifying specific
means of verification (token_via_email, pin_via_sms) which sounds
both contentious (deciding which of two methods is stronger) and
difficult to manage (who maintains the enumerated lists of methods?
what happens if later research reveals a fundamental flaw in some
method, or infrastructure changes alter the value of some methods?).
I think it would be better to define the validation level as a
number, and provide some guidance on what sort of current (i.e.
as of the date the spec is approved) validation methods should
equate to certain levels. There's always going to be a problem of
trust here, as anybody could set up an OP that claims with 100%
certaintly that my name is David Recordon. There will be a natural
tendency for RPs to whitelist trustworthy OPs, just as we've seen
whitelists of the PKI vendors we all depend on for our TLS/SSL certs.
So don't get bogged down in an exhaustive enumeration of methods
(I can just imagine providers of patended systems clamoring to
be listed) and an exhausting excercise of comparing methods (whose
PIN mailer is better? Is the US postal service more or less
secure and trustworthy than the Swiss postal service?). Use general
examples and numeric scores.
-Peter
More information about the specs
mailing list