[WRAP] Name space and prefix - OpenID Harmonization

[Nat Sakimura]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2010-02-25, at 4:11 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This may have come up earlier but ...
>
> I think Wrap should have a namespace / versioning syntax.
> Invariably, it will evolve, and will require version number etc. so, it
> seems better to me to have one from the beginning.
>
> e.g.,
>
> wrap_ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0
>> wrap_client_id ...
>
>
> Versioning was discussed. I don't recall the details, but it was decided it
> did not add value.
>
>
I actually think it does.
Perhaps not in the initial version, but in the future for sure.
So, it is better to have it in the design from the beginning.


>
>
> I would go further. Why is underscore '_' is used for the delimiter?
> If we make it dot '.', it will improve the future compatibility with
> OpenID.
>
>
> Or OpenID could change to using '_'  :-)
>

If you use '_' as the namespace delimiter, then '_' should be disallowed in
the parameter name, which is not the case right now.


>
>
> So, we could do something like:
>
> openid.ns=http://whatever/wrap/1.0
>
> openid.client_id ...
>
>
> The same applies for OpenID. For an unknown reason, though OpenID has
> namespace so that we write:
>
> openid.ns= http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0
>
>
> the prefix "openid" is fixed. We should be able to change it like:
>
> wrap.ns=http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0
>
>
> Now, the third point.
>
> Could we not try to harmonize the variable names between the two specs?
>
> OpenID is in use widely, so it is kind of hard to change it,
>
>
> Interesting assumption. At IIW we discussed OpenID v Next that was NOT
> backward compatible. It would seem that there is an oppportunity to make
> changes to OpenID as well as OAuth WRAP.
>

yes. The above also requires changes on the OpenID side, but I am seeing
an opportunity to make the transition smoother.


>
> so I would request Wrap community to come closer.
>
>
> WRAP followed OAuth, which has much broader adoption from what I know than
> OpenID
>
>
Arguably yes, but at the same time, 'wrap_' is not 'oauth_' ;-)

>
> IMHO, we should try to harmonize/unite instead of fragmenting.
>
>
> Agreed, but perhaps the changes could happen in OpenID or a combination?
>

Definitely in combination.

It is good that OpenID Foundation finally can start creating WGs again.


>
> -- Dick
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100226/95e8a9b3/attachment.htm>