[OIDFSC] OpenID v.Next Discovery Working Group Proposal

[Nat Sakimura]

Good idea.

I can setup a project under bitbucket.org/openid/ (shall we upgrade to
non-free version
so that we get it under openid.net?) and it has a rudimentary bug
tracking system.
It can be used by logging in by OpenID.

=nat

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Johannes Ernst
<jernst+openid.net at netmesh.us> wrote:
> Allen, combining what you just wrote with what Brian said on the board
> mailing list about MRDs -- perhaps it would make sense to set up a "bug
> tracking system" of some kind and use that to drive spec evolution?
> On May 23, 2010, at 18:56, Allen Tom wrote:
>
> Hi Johannes,
>
> There isn’t a document summarizing the deficiencies with OpenID 2.0
> discovery – I think it would be very useful for the WG and for the Community
> if we wrote this down
>
> Off the top of my head, some of the problems are:
>
> Yadis discovery is very vague as to exactly how the RP is supposed to fetch
> the OP’s discovery document. Should it send the magic Accept header? Look
> for the X-XRDS-Location header in the response? Do HTML discovery? In
> practice, many implementers have had problems implementing discovery because
> there are too many ways to do it
> Speaking of Yadis, the specs need to be revised, and it’s unclear how to go
> about doing this
> Because a compromised discovery document can result in the complete
> breakdown in OpenID security – it’s important that we find ways to increase
> the security of discovery – perhaps it can be signed? Moved into DNS?
> Discovery is hard to implement – the majority of the code in OpenID
> libraries is to implement discovery. We can probably simplify discovery to
> require less code to implement
> Delegation is a really useful feature in OpenID – it was pretty
> straightforward in OpenID 1.1, but is very confusing (to say the least) in
> OpenID 2.0 – we can probably do something in discovery to make delegation
> work better
> The infamous NASCAR problem could possibly be helped by discovery
> The infamous phishing problem could also possibly be helped by discovery
> LRDD, host-meta, and webfinger are pretty interesting – we should see how
> OpenID can leverage these new specs
>
> I’m sure that there are more issues with OpenID 2.0 discovery. Anyone else
> want to take a stab at it?
>
> Allen
>
>
> On 5/21/10 7:55 PM, "Johannes Ernst" <jernst+openid.net at netmesh.us> wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2010, at 19:28, Allen Tom wrote:
>
> ... there’s universal consensus that the existing OpenID 2.0 discovery
> mechanism is very deficient ...
>
> Is there a summary somewhere of this "universal consensus" of deficiencies?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
> NetMesh Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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