Requiring Pseudonymous Identifier

[George Fletcher]

I don't think OpenID should specify how pseudonymous identifiers are 
generated. That should be up to the OP. But I like the idea of using a 
fixed URI as the claimed_id value to specify the behavior desired by the 
RP. If, however, we need to grow this to cover anonymous based 
identifiers (i.e. the claims based models from earlier in this thread) 
then it might make sense to look at a PAPE extension that covers the 
type of identifier requested.

Thanks,
George

Nat Sakimura wrote:
> Sorry for a slow response. This week is especially busy for me...
>
> I borrowed the notion from Austrian Citizen ID system.
> In there, the services are divided into "sectors."
> A sector may span several agencies.
> They call ID as PIN (Personal Identification Number).
>
> There is a secret PIN (sPIN) which is not used anywhere but in their SmartCard.
> Then, sector sepcific PIN (ssPIN) is calculated in the manner of :
>
> SHA1(sPIN + SectorID)
>
> (Note, there is a bit more details but...)
>
> I have thrown OP secret into it.
> To avoid the analytic attack, I agree that it is better to use
> individual secret, as some of you
> points out.
>
> Regards,
>
> =nat
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 12-May-09, at 1:36 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>     
>>> Reason for using RP's Subject in XRD instead of simply using realm is
>>> to allow for something like group identifier.
>>>       
>> would you elaborate on the group identifier concept?
>>
>>     
>>> This is just one idea. Downside of this approach
>>> is that we need to set up a WG.
>>>
>>> I am sure there are more ideas. It might be possible to utilize AX
>>> so that it will only be a profile that does not require a WG.
>>>
>>> So shall we start discussing which direction we want to go forward?
>>>       
>> sure!
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>