Identifier for group of individulas

[Andrew Arnott]

Fragments are valid URI parts.  But they are unique in that a web browser
never sends them to the server.  The OpenID 2.0 spec specifically calls out
fragments as valid ways that OPs can indicate to RPs that a new user
controls this identifier.

So in fact that *may* be a problem.  Multiple users could be asserting
control of the identifier (minus the fragment).  The OpenID 2.0 spec at
least hints that OPs will use this generational #fragment to indicate a *new
* user controls the identifier (identifier recycling).  An RP that sees a
new fragment attached to a claimed_id may assume (perhaps rightly) that the
old user is now gone and delete settings for the old user.  If the OP
habitually sticks on random goo to the end of an identifier via its
#fragment, then that interpretation by the RP would not be safe.

I don't know if others read the spec that way though.
--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it." - Voltaire


On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am not sure about fragments. I dont think the fragment falls under the
> deifinition of URI. see rfc 3986.
> The group can be indentified within the path part, assuming all members of
> the group belong to the same OP and the group is known while issuing the
> OpenID. In that case we dont need anything to define at the OpenID level.
> Or am i missing something here?
>
> Andrew Arnott wrote:
> >
> > Appending a fragment at least will help the RP distinguish between
> > identifiers. And in the short term it has the merit of not requiring any
> > spec changes.
> >
> > But I still would like to see a group membership claim kept separate from
> > the identity claim, perhaps via the claim discovery I described in the
> > other
> > thread.
> > --
> > Andrew Arnott
> > "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the
> death
> > your right to say it." - Voltaire
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> My previous post on pseudonymous identifier seemed to have kicked off
> >> interesting but orthogonal discussion of identifier for group of
> >> individuals (like school class, friends, etc.)
> >>
> >> Please use this thread instead for this discussion.
> >>
> >> Just to put an context to the discussion, I can put one deployed
> >> example of this type of identifier use.
> >>
> >> mixi, the largest Japanese SNS, is using the concept of "group
> >> identifier."
> >>
> >> For example, to prove you are a friend of mine, you can authenticate
> >> with the identifier
> >>
> >> https://id.mixi.jp/nat/friend
> >>
> >> The verified identifier would be something like
> >> https://id.mixi.jp/nat/friend#hashOfYourId etc.,
> >> if I rememer right.
> >>
> >> As you can see, it requires no change in the OpenID AuthN 2.0 nor an
> >> extension.
> >>
> >> Anyways.. my 2c.
> >>
> >> =nat
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> -----
>
> Santosh Rajan
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Identifier-for-group-of-individulas-tp23525446p23526064.html
> Sent from the OpenID - Specs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090513/96aa22d8/attachment.htm>