Attribute Exchange 2.0

[Dick Hardt]

Hi Breno, I can answer questions and share opinions on this list. I'm  
not in a position yet to be able to participate in the AX 2.0 WG. I do  
think I might have that resolved next week.

On 2009-09-17, at 4:30 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:

> Glad to hear Dick back in this list. Dirk, could we immediately move
> to form the AX 2.0 WG (hopefully with a membership that is
> representative)? I believe (and not because I am a member) that the AX
> 2.0 WG needs to be the party addressing this issue because of the
> necessity of preserving some coherence within the AX spec. The WG
> should make a formal proposal to either move this into the umbrella of
> OIDF or take it out, and get the bless for spec-council for either
> option on a reasonable time frame.
>
> We have numerous speculative threads in this issue. At this point, the
> very possibility of a result (whatever it may be) appears to me as an
> unqualified win.
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Paul Trevithick <ptrevithick at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>> The only difference, e.g., between an Open AX URL attribute and an
>> IMI-infocard URL claim is who’s authoritative over minting it. The  
>> question
>> for the OIDF is this: Are the benefits of being able to be  
>> authoritative
>> over the attribute URL minting process, greater than the benefits  
>> of letting
>> go of that authority and increasing interoperability in the overall  
>> open
>> identity ecosystem?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> PS: The ICF said, hey we need a place for folks using the IMI  
>> protocol to
>> know where the attribute URLs are listed. So we created [1] along  
>> with a
>> very light-weight email-based process for getting new URIs added.  
>> It all
>> works fine. This is clearly one way to answer the above question.
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.informationcard.net/index.php/Claim_Catalog
>>
>>
>> On 9/17/09 4:48 PM, "Allen Tom" <atom at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given that everyone using AX seems to be using axschema.org, we  
>> should just
>> bless it. Perhaps the OIDF should take over running it? We should  
>> try to
>> have an official process (hopefully very lightweight) for adding new
>> attributes.
>>
>> +100 for making the urls shorter, since AX responses usually exceed  
>> the 2KB
>> URL limit, and have to be sent via POST, causing  UX issues. (browser
>> warnings if the RP doesn't support HTTPS, an extra "white page"  
>> with the
>> form and the button, JS dependency, etc)
>>
>> Allen
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Hardt wrote:
>>
>> axschema.org is shorter then schemas.openid.net and implies the
>> schemas could be used for things other then OpenID
>>
>> given that though, I don't have a strong preference
>>
>> On 2009-09-16, at 2:06 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As I recall the idea was to move the URI to use schemas.openid.net.
>>
>> Is that still the preferred option from your point of view,  or do
>> you see axshema.org continuing in some way?
>>
>> John B.
>>
>> On 2009-09-16, at 4:54 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2009-09-16, at 12:28 PM, John Bradley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick,
>>
>> That includes all of the schema work and AX 2.0 documents?
>>
>>
>>
>> All the work that Sxip Identity did. I don't recall that anyone else
>> contributed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Who controls axschema.org now?
>>
>>
>>
>> I do personally
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> --Breno
>
> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
>