XRD and OpenID 2.1

Thu Sep 3 05:25:50 UTC 2009

The first XRD in my example is the "User Discovery" XRD in Dirk's post.
I am talking about what to use for <rel> URI here.
In XRI TC's discussion, we disccussed that it probably is not right to
use the same URI for both "User Discovery" document (which defines
relationship, "Relationship URI") and "Provider Discovery" (which 
defines the service).
I suppose Dirk is using the same URI just for the lack of this 
"Relationship URI".

Also, in Dirk's example, in User Discovery, he is siting
<URI>http://openid.example.com/op</URI>

I suppose this is somewhat misleading.
I suppose it should be

<URI>http://example.com/#<URI>

(Note: I have added # to denote that it is pointing to a non information 
resource.
As it is a non-information resource, the matching information resource 
has to be
discovered by some other protocol, such as LRDD/site-meta.)

As to the Provider Discovery is concerned, there is no <Host> in the 
latest XRD schema.
It is unified with <Subject>. How to express the "Subject Set" or entire 
domain is
still under discussion, I believe, in site-meta discussion. The last I 
have seen is
something like: <Subject>site-meta://example.com</Subject>.
Personally, I do not like it. (W3C people will not either, I think.)
What some XRI TC people suggested was to use something like
<Subject>http://example.com/#</Subject> as in AWWW, but this is something
that should be discussed in another thread.

What I was referring to as "not sure" was whether we need to support all 
types of LRDD
or just one, for OpenID. I have got an opinion on that but I am 
intending to start
yet another thread for that. (Or somebody else can do so. I am rather 
time constrained.)

I think it is a good practice to separate those threads and concentrate 
on one issue
per thread so that we can avoid drifting discussion.

This thread is only about the Relationship URI.

=nat

Santosh Rajan wrote:
> There is an article posted here related to this.
> http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/09/openid-and-lrdd.html
>
> So how does this work in the above framework?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp 
> <mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>> wrote:
>
>     So, User's XRD would have something like
>
>     <xrd id="foo">
>     <Subject>http://sakimura.org/nat</Subject>
>     <ds:Signature> ... </ds:Signature>
>     <link>
>     <rel>http://openid.net/rels/myopenid_provider</rel>
>     <url>http://myopenid.net/</url>
>     </link>
>     </xrd>
>
>     This is fetched during the discovery. (I am still not so sure about
>     the relationship between X-XRDS-Location: header and site_meta etc.
>     Are we abandoning the header model?)
>
>     Then, the RP searches for my relationship with OP through <rel>.
>     Once it was found, the RP goes to the url specified in the <link> to
>     get the Service's XRD like:
>
>     <xrd id="baa">
>     <Subject>http://myopenid.net/</Subject>
>     <ds:Signature>...</ds:Signature>
>     <link>
>     <rel>http://openid.net/op/endpoint</rel>
>     <url>http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0</url>
>     </link>
>     </xrd>
>
>     to find out the concrete endpoint of this authentication service.
>
>     =nat
>
>
>     John Bradley wrote:
>
>         Allen,
>
>         In XRD 1.0 we are moving to a link based model.
>
>         So a users XRD rather than having to specify the openID
>         providers service can point to an openID provider.
>
>         The URIs that we currently use describe the service not the
>         provider.
>
>         I think Nat is looking for a link relationship that describes
>         a user pointing  to a service providers XRD rather than to the
>         service itself.
>
>         There will be a bunch of new link types required for various
>         protocols.
>
>         John B.
>
>
>         On 2009-09-02, at 5:27 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>
>             Hi Nat,
>
>             Can you explain the problem in a bit more detail? Can you
>             give an example use case?
>
>             Thanks
>             Allen
>
>
>             Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
>                 The second topic for OpenID 2.1
>
>                 Maybe, it should be separated to the Discovery but...
>
>                 In XRD 1.0, we need to define <Rel> type url for the
>                 user=OP relationship.
>                 What shall we use?
>
>                 Something like:
>
>                 http://specs.openid.net/rel/openid_provider#
>
>                 =nat
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 specs mailing list
>                 specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net>
>                 http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             specs mailing list
>             specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net>
>             http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     specs mailing list
>     specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net>
>     http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://santrajan.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/santoshrajan
> http://www.facebook.com/santosh.rajan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090903/bbd539f8/attachment-0001.htm>