Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter Proposal

Breno de Medeiros breno at google.com
Tue Jan 27 05:34:55 UTC 2009


Let's please maintain the discussion on this thread on definition of
the scope of the WG. Once the WG is formed, the technical aspects can
be discussed there.

The only pertinent issue that is left open in this regard appears to
be whether or not SREG will be inspected as part of this. Allen,
please edit the WG proposal charter to include it.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Raghu Nallani Chakravartula
<raghu at producthorizons.com> wrote:
> Futher, the verification information cannot sometimes be expressed in a
> single type.
> It may need to be qualified with additional information as regards who
> verified it, when, how long is the verification valid etc...
>
> I am guessing validation data exchange will need to grow into a struct
> exchange.
>
> -Raghu
>
> Paul Madsen wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, the separate 'verified' field is the approach the Infocard community
>> took
>>
>> https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog
>>
>> They also allow the particular verification method used to be listed
>>
>>
>> https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods
>>
>> One drawback of this method is that all claims sent together get lumped
>> together into a single bucket wrt verification
>>
>> paul
>>
>> Martin Atkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Henrik Biering wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agree!
>>>> If the range of SReg attributes is expanded, however, I would suggest to
>>>> add phone number (incl. quality as suggested for email) and possibly
>>>> street+city address line(s). That would make it possible to fill in a
>>>> somewhat larger part of typical registration forms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It might be good to apply the quality thing to all of the fields.
>>>
>>> One approach might be to add a "verified" argument that contains a list
>>> of names of fields that the OP has verified in some way.
>>>
>>> However, I think the SREG spec itself needs work done since the 1.1 draft
>>> (that was never published) has a bunch of problems. It might be better to do
>>> such work in a separate working group; I already have an updated 1.1 draft
>>> with some of the problems from the current 1.1 draft fixed that could
>>> potentially be used as a basis, though I'll need to dig it out since I'm not
>>> sure what I checked it in to.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs mailing list
>>> specs at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Madsen
>> e:paulmadsen @ ntt-at.com
>> p:613-482-0432
>> m:613-282-8647
>> web:connectid.blogspot.com
>> ConnectID <http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)



More information about the specs mailing list