Requiring Pseudonymous Identifier

[Paul Madsen]

I dont think this fits either PAPE or AX.

I cant see how the privacy characteristics of an identifier are part of 
'authentication policy'. How the user authenticates to the OP is 
(mostly) orthogonal to the nature of the identifier the OP asserts.

Nor does it fit the AX description of attribute as "a unit of personal 
identity information".

regards

paul

Andrew Arnott wrote:
> This scenario doesn't fit what I've always felt AX was for.  I don't 
> expect a fetch request to change anything about the underlying openid 
> transport other than prompting the user for information disclosure at 
> the OP. 
>
> PAPE fits better in my mind.  But again, if PAPE is the only way to 
> get a psuedo-anonymous identifier, then unsolicited assertions can't 
> get it right.  But if we allow PAPE requests to ask for one, and for 
> it to also be discoverable via the RP return_to service in its XRDS, 
> then both unsolicited assertion and RP-behind-firewall scenarios work.
> --
> Andrew Arnott
> "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the 
> death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:58 PM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com 
> <mailto:david at sixapart.com>> wrote:
>
>     Does it make more sense to use a PAPE policy requesting a
>     pseudonymous identifier or an AX attribute requesting one?  Any of
>     these approaches would work, I just don't think we've mapped out
>     the pros/cons of each.
>
>     --David
>
>
>     On May 13, 2009, at 8:44 AM, George Fletcher wrote:
>
>         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 <mailto: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!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         specs mailing list
>         specs at openid.net <mailto:specs at openid.net>
>         http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     specs mailing list
>     specs at openid.net <mailto: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/20090514/243c9e46/attachment.htm>