Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter Proposal

[Allen Tom]

Breno -

I've updated the WG Charter to include patching SREG to include avatar 
image and info about the quality of the user's email address.

I also updated the charter to mention that AX will be updated to allow 
RPs to pass a link to their privacy policy.

http://openid.pbwiki.com/OpenID_Attribute_Exchange_Extension_2_0

Thanks
Allen


Breno de Medeiros wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090127/88c4f705/attachment-0002.htm>