OpenID Hybrid v2 Proposal (formerly known OpenID Connect)

Eran Hammer-Lahav eran at hueniverse.com
Wed May 26 08:22:28 UTC 2010


Discussing the name is a distraction. The issue is whether the OpenID foundation wants to be where identity work is done, or where the OpenID protocol (and nothing else) is done. Again, the question is very simple: OAuth is going to have an identity layer (that's a done deal) - do you want to work on it here under the OpenID foundation or not?

Everything else (like naming, migration path from OpenID 2.0 to OAuth 2.0 identity) is stuff for the WG to figure out.

This is a fundamental question far beyond all this geek talk: what is the purpose of this community? Where are its boundaries? Is this the hub of web identity work, or just one tiny piece of it?

I'm happy with any answer.

It would be helpful if people would voice clear opinions on this rather than going in circles (i.e., start with "I'm for/against doing this work here, and this is why...").

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-
> bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Martin Atkins
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:49 PM
> To: openid-specs at lists.openid.net
> Subject: Re: OpenID Hybrid v2 Proposal (formerly known OpenID Connect)
> 
> On 05/25/2010 01:56 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > A better way to look at OpenID Connect is to just think of it as
> > revised version of the OpenID Hybrid. The purpose of the Hybrid WG was
> > to find a way to combine OpenID Authentication with the approval of an
> > Oauth access token into a single request/response.
> >
> 
> "OpenID Connect" isn't actually compatible with OpenID at anything but the
> highest conceptual level.
> 
> > Renaming the OpenID Connect WG to be the OpenID Hybrid v2 WG could
> > possibly clarify the goals of the WG, and reduce confusion within the
> community.
> > Afterall - Hybrid is intended for the case where the user's IdP is
> > also the SP, so the Connect proposal is really a revised Hybrid
> > proposal, rather than a proposal for OpenID v.Next
> >
> 
> I think this would only make sense if the resulting protocol were functionally
> equivalent to OpenID. That is to say that I can implement it against my
> existing OpenID infrastructure without doing data migrations, changing my
> UI, etc.
> 
> I think the most important deviation in OpenID Connect is that the identifier
> is no longer expected to be human-readable; while I completely agree that
> this is the right design if we're starting over from a clean slate, that's a
> breaking change for most existing consumer implementations that link to the
> identifier as the user's "home page" or "profile page".
> 
> I still think this thing should be branded with a stronger OAuth connotation
> than an OpenID connotation, since it's far closer to OAuth than it is to
> OpenID. I didn't really like the OpenID Connect name, but at least it made it
> sound like this was something new and different; calling it OpenID/OAuth
> Hybrid makes it sound a lot more like a different implementation of the same
> thing than the radical rethink that OpenID Connect actually represents.
> 
> That's my two cents, at least.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs


More information about the specs mailing list