experimental namespace for openid.net

David Recordon david at sixapart.com
Fri Jul 10 23:49:49 UTC 2009


Should this experimental namespace only apply to work being done by  
OpenID working groups?  I'm very supportive of pushing the standards  
forward via prototypes, but that should be done as part of the OpenID  
community instead of by a single company.

I'd be very happy to help get a discovery working group spun up and  
charter them to modernize OpenID 2.0's discovery process.

--David

On Jul 10, 2009, at 11:58 AM, George Fletcher wrote:

> +1 to http://experimental.openid.net
>
> It would be good to add this to the "repository" work Breno and John  
> are doing as having a registry for experimental URIs would be good  
> as well.
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> Dirk Balfanz wrote:
>> [+general at openid.net <mailto:general at openid.net> for a broader  
>> audience]
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz at google.com <mailto:balfanz at google.com 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi guys,
>>    Google would like to launch a feature in which we're allowing our
>>    Google Apps hosted domains to become OpenID providers. The
>>    authentication part of it is pretty simple - Google is already
>>    logging in users to their apps, so we can also host an OP endpoint
>>    for those domains and send assertions back to Relying Parties.
>>    What is more difficult is the discovery part. We have been working
>>    with the XRI TC to define a XRD-based discovery protocol that
>>    would allow this kind of hosting of discovery documents on behalf
>>    of our customers.
>>    We believe that providing proof-of-concept implementations drives
>>    standardization processes forward, so in this spirit we want to
>>    launch this feature in the near future, using a discovery protocol
>>    that as far as we can tell meets all the requirements of what the
>>    XRI TC is currently converging on, but which has not been vetted
>>    as an official standard (it's a chicken and egg thing - without
>>    PoC no standards, without standards by definition no
>>    standards-compliant implementations).
>>
>>    While we were tossing around ideas     <http://markmail.org/message/ixc5led2lobdwij2 
>> >in the
>>    standardization committees we just used random identifiers for new
>>    XML namespaces, etc. that we would need for this discovery
>>    protocol. Now that we're about to launch we need to decide what to
>>    call these things. We would like to use a namespace
>>    in http://specs.openid.net/... because we want this kind of
>>    discovery protocol to be part of OpenID, but we can't really use
>>    them because we don't have a next-generation discovery protocol  
>> yet.
>>    So what should we use? How
>>    about http://experimental.openid.net/... ? That way, Relying
>>    Parties know that what we're trying to do is be a part of the
>>    OpenID community and bring the protocol forward. On the other
>>    hand, this would also be a signal to the RP that they're using a
>>    feature that has not been vetted as a standard yet.
>>    For example, a discovery document for a domain balfanz.net
>>    <http://balfanz.net> at Google might look like this (notice the
>>    "experimental" namespace and the XML elements using it):
>>
>>    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>    <xrds:XRDS xmlns:xrds="xri://$xrds" xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)">
>>      <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
>>      <ds:SignedInfo>
>>      <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/2009/01#canonicalize-raw-octets 
>> " />
>>      <ds:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1 
>> " />
>>      </ds:SignedInfo>
>>      <ds:KeyInfo>
>>      <ds:X509Data>
>>      <ds:X509Certificate>
>>      MIICgjCCA...
>>      </ds:X509Certificate>
>>      <ds:X509Certificate>
>>      MIICsDCCAhmgAwIB...
>>      </ds:X509Certificate>
>>      </ds:X509Data>
>>      </ds:KeyInfo>
>>      </ds:Signature>
>>      <XRD>
>>      <CanonicalID>balfanz.net <http://balfanz.net></CanonicalID>
>>      <Service priority="0">
>>      <Type>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server</Type>
>>      <Type>http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0</Type>
>>      <Type>http://specs.openid.net/extensions/pape/1.0</Type>
>>      <URI>https://www.google.com/a/balfanz.net/o8/ud?be=o8</URI>
>>      </Service>
>>      <Service priority="0" xmlns:experimental="http://experimental.openid.net/google/2009/07/xmlns/ 
>> ">
>>      <Type>http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby</ 
>> Type>
>>      <MediaType>application/xrds+xml</MediaType>
>>      <experimental:URITemplate>https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri= 
>> {%uri}
>>    <https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri=%7B%uri%7D></ 
>> experimental:URITemplate>
>>      <experimental:NextAuthority>hosted-id.google.com
>>    <http://hosted-id.google.com></experimental:NextAuthority>
>>      </Service>
>>      </XRD>
>>    </xrds:XRDS>
>>
>>    What do you guys think?
>>
>>    Dirk.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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




More information about the specs mailing list