OpenID V.Next - Some Views to Consider

Thu May 13 18:39:31 UTC 2010

Paul,

I am going to split my answer into two parts.

The focus of this discussion needs to be on the charter of the Discovery WG and it;s scope.

The specs list is a way for people to comment on the charter.   The work will be done on a separate mailing list subject to the OIDF IPR policy.

We want the results of the spec process to be open and free of patent issues especially from the participants.

People participating in the Discovery work will agree to contribute any IPR they hold with respect to the final output.

Discussions on this list provide no IPR protection for the community. 

I think we have determined that we want the charter to allow exploring the inclusion of non http:  identifiers as input to the discovery process.
An example of that would be the acct: URI used by webfinger.     That is consideration not a guaranteed inclusion,  this is only the charter scope.

This discussion got onto the topic of allowing non http: URI as claimed ID.   Should the scope of the charter include considering that. as an option.

I think some people have interpreted your comments as wanting the charter to restrict claimed_id to only http: scheme URI.
I think Santosh and others want the WG to consider allowing that.

If you are in agreement with allowing that in the scope of the WG charter then I think we can close that part of the discussion.

That is only saying it can be considered not that it will be included in the final spec.

The Second part of my answer is that you are close.

Step 6 is a URI for the openID service not the users claimed_id as it has been discussed to my knowledge.

That is part of what the WG needs to decide.   

That link will need a discovery step to get the parameters for the OP.

There may be elements defined for the XRD that indicate what the localID or alias is at the OP and other overrides for delegation.

That will be up to the Discovery WG to determine.

Regards
John B.

On 2010-05-13, at 12:00 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:

> John,
>  
> Perhaps we need to walk through this so that I don’t get confused.
>  
> I had assumed it would work this way:
>  
> 1) I enter paulej at packetizer.com into the RP’s login window
> 2) The RP would assume this is acct:paulej at packetizer.com
> 3) The RP would query http://www.packetizer.com/.well-known/host-meta to get an XRD document that contains an lrdd link relation with, for example, an href="http://www.packetizer.com/lrdd/?uri={uri}"
> 4) The RP would then query the LRDD link with the acct: URI
> 5) The would return another XRD document with a <Subject> of acct:paulej at packetizer.com, and a <Link> with a link relation value of “openid” (or whatever the group wants to define)
> 6) The href associated with the above <Link> would be the user’s claimed ID.
>  
> At this point, the RP has an OpenID claimed ID, just as if the user had entered that value into the current OpenID login box to begin with.
>  
> BTW, all of this is functioning on my site now if you want to actually issue queries to see the results.  It’s not being used for anything right now, but I implemented it just for the heck of it :-)
>  
> So, if you’re suggesting the mapping from paulej at packetizer.com to claimed ID would work differently, what steps are you proposing to be taken?
>  
> Paul
>  
> From: John Bradley [mailto:john.bradley at wingaa.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:25 AM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: 'Santosh Rajan'; openid-specs at lists.openid.net
> Subject: Re: OpenID V.Next - Some Views to Consider
>  
> The openID link relation is to your openID service eg Google not your claimed_id.
>  
> The <Subject> of the XRD is the name of the thing you are looking up.
>  
> If you input paulej at packetizer.com into a LRDD resolution process and use webfinger for normalization you will get a XRD.
>  
> That XRD may have the <Subject>  http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej 
>  
> That would be up to you or your OP to decide.  
>  
> I think Santosh wants to allow you the option of having acct:paulej at packetizer.com as the subject of the XRD.
>  
> This leads to questions about what the core protocol is validating.  Is it the claimed_id or the openid.identity.  
> Do we need both,  is delegation supported, and if so how, etc.
>  
> I think the WG needs to consider what impact having non http/https URI as claimed ID has on the overall protocol.
>  
> I don't want to restrict the WG from considering the issue via the charter.
>  
> John B.
> On 2010-05-13, at 10:51 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> 
> 
> Santosh,
>  
> The subject of paulej at packetizer.com is what?
> If that can be assumed to be acct:paulej at packetizer.com, then when WebFinger is employed, the Subject of the XRD document is acct:paulej at packetizer.com.  That’s not what I want.
>  
> Inside the XRD document should be a link like this:
> <Link rel="openid" href="http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej"/>
>  
> The link relation value is still subject to debate, but that’s what I think we should use to identify the claimed ID.
>  
> Paul
>  
>  
> From: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Santosh Rajan
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:50 AM
> To: John Bradley
> Cc: openid-specs at lists.openid.net
> Subject: Re: OpenID V.Next - Some Views to Consider
>  
> I will vote for the Subject of the XRD to be the claimed_id. It only seems natural, and clean to do that. 
> 
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:17 AM, John Bradley <john.bradley at wingaa.com> wrote:
>  
> So if openID supports LRDD then normalization rules for Acct: and other URI schemes could be specified so that they to can be resolved to a XRD.
>  
> The question will be for the core protocol what to use as the claimed_id.   
>  
> There are three schools of thought.
> 1 The normalized input identifier
> 2 The Subject of the XRD
> 3 The claimed_id that the OP returns.
>  
> There are arguments to be made for all three.
>  
> I expect this to be addressed in the WG.
>  
>  
> On 2010-05-12, at 12:34 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>  
> Starting a new thread here based on an earlier one quoted below.
>  
> Let us reconsider the definition of OpenID for V.next. I would like to see a new definition for OpenID.
>  
> "An OpenID is Any Valid URI that can be resolved to it's Descriptor".
>  
> Now let me give a little explanation on the above, with a few points.
> 1) Existing OpenID's version 1 and 2 are compatible with the above definition. (http(s) OpenId's version 1 and 2 do resolve to their descriptor's)
> 2) Email like identifiers are compatible with the above definition with the webfinger protocol, and ofcourse resolve to their descriptor's.
>  
> Now any other future protocol that can make its URI resolvable to a descriptor, will also be a Valid OpenID. Let me give an example.
>  
> According to the above definition we can make "tag URI's" valid OpenID's, as long as we have a protocol to resolve this URI to its's descriptor.
>  
> tag:user at example.com,2007-11-02:Tag_URI
>  
> Now as far as I am concerned tag URI's are even better as OpenID's, because they are unique over space and time.
>  
> Webfinger support for tag URI's anyone? :-)
>  
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul E. Jones <paulej at packetizer.com>
> Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:11 AM
> Subject: RE: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group
> To: Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>
> Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>, jsmarr at stanfordalumni.org, openid-specs at lists.openid.net, tech-comm at openid.net
> 
> 
> 
> Santosh,
>  
> Why not store the claimed ID in the webfinger (LRDD) XRD document?
>  
> The objective, I would hope, is to make it easier to log into web sites.  Email-style identifiers make that easier, but the system does not have to be built around those.
>  
> So, I sign up with a service provider.  Let’s just use my own site as an example.  I am assigned an email address paulej at packetizer.com.  Behind the scenes, I am also assign an OpenID ID http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej.  Now, when I visit a web site, I can type ‘paulej at packetizer.com’ and the site can perform a webfinger query to discovery by OpenID ID.  We would define a link relation (something we’ve talked about before) that represents openid.  It could be http://openid.net/identity or it could be simply “openid” (since link relations need not be URIs).  Looking at the href of the “openid” link relation, one would find my OpenID URIhttp://openid.packetizer.com/paulej.
>  
> Now, should I wish to have a different email provider than my openid provider, that’s fine: I could change the record associated with the openid link relation to contain a different OpenID identifier.  Alternatively, I could just get an account at someopenidop.com and they might assign an e-mail style address like paulej at someopenidop.com and perform the Webfinger resolution behind the scenes.
>  
> Anyway, issue this request:
> $ curl http://www.packetizer.com/lrdd/?uri=acct:paulej@packetizer.com
>  
> You’ll see the link relation for my claimed ID:
> <Link rel="http://openid.net/identity"
>       href="http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej"/>
>  
> It does introduce another protocol, but I think these play nicely together.  The real identity would remain the URL that OpenID uses today.  The email identifier would just be an alias for it.
>  
> Paul
>  
> From: Santosh Rajan [mailto:santrajan at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:39 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: Mike Jones; jsmarr at stanfordalumni.org; openid-specs at lists.openid.net; tech-comm at openid.net
> Subject: Re: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group
>  
>  
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Paul E. Jones <paulej at packetizer.com> wrote:
>  
> Adding support for email-style addresses is something I like, but something that can be provided via webfinger.  Thus, no change to the base protocol.
>  
>  
> I beg to disagree here. I think the base protocol needs to address the issue of email like identifiers. I would like to see that email like identifiers are valid OpenID claimed id's.
> So something like acct:example @ example.com should be a valid OpenID claimed_id.
>  
> Also this discussion should not be in this thread (about attributes) and maybe someone could start a new thread on this subject.
>  
> Thanks
> Santosh
>  
>  
> http://hi.im/santosh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hi.im/santosh
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hi.im/santosh
> 
> 
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100513/c2841f11/attachment-0001.htm>