Identifier for group of individulas

[Nat Sakimura]

My interpretation is that the fragment does not necessarily mean a new
user, but it just differentiate among different users.

=nat

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/