[OpenID] SREG 1.x attributes

[Shane B Weeden]

Andrew - understand your points, but that can be argued both ways. If I 
*want* to use SREG, and *want* to advertise my headphone preference and 
cannot extend the spec, I am forced to overload an existing attribute name 
rather than advertise a more meaningful alternative. This is exactly what 
happened in many early deployments of LDAP. And you're right - no one will 
care that my implementation doesn't enforce that element of the spec, and 
it won't. It's a shame though that some others might, when that could 
simply be a deployment-time decision.





"Andrew Arnott" <andrewarnott at gmail.com> 
02/12/2008 07:31 AM

To
Shane B Weeden/Australia/IBM at IBMAU
cc
"Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)" <eddy_nigg at startcom.org>, 
general-bounces at openid.net, "general at openid.net" <general at openid.net>
Subject
Re: [OpenID] SREG 1.x attributes






Shane,

To limit it explicitly prevents the erosion of the spec by people randomly 
making up additional field names and starting to use them in conflict with 
each other.  If I come up with a "phone" field referring to headphone 
preference and you decide to add "phone" and use it for cell phones then 
we're obviously in conflict with each other and our OP/RP will not get 
along.  I like that SREG guarantees this won't happen by closing itself to 
extensibility. 

If you are thinking about closed-house special cases where you control 
both parties, then party on and extend it if you so desire.  No one else 
will ever know or care that you aren't implementing SREG according to the 
spec. :)

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death 
your right to say it." - Voltaire


On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Shane B Weeden <sweeden at au1.ibm.com> 
wrote:

Just to be clear - I am not asking for more work to be done on defining 
other SREG attribute types and names, I am simply asking for the spec not 
to dictate that the listed attributes in section 4 are the ONLY allowed 
attributes. There seems no logical reason to do so and it may result in 
open source (and other) libraries implementing restrictions which offer no 
benefits to consumers and may make some deployments harder. I really 
didn't think it would be a big deal. 




"Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)" <eddy_nigg at startcom.org> 
Sent by: general-bounces at openid.net 
02/12/2008 05:33 AM 


To
"general at openid.net" <general at openid.net> 
cc

Subject
Re: [OpenID] SREG 1.x attributes








On 12/01/2008 09:02 PM, Martin Atkins:
> Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
>>
>> On 12/01/2008 07:58 PM, David Recordon:
>>> http://www.axschema.org/types/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So it would be fairly easy to extend exactly according to these types 
>> and everybody is happy....or am I missing something?
>>
>
> It already has been extended according to these types. We called it 
> Attribute Exchange. :)

Can you explain the call for extending SREG then and why AX isn't widely 
implemented anywhere as far as I can tell? Or maybe that's the wrong 
conclusion?



[attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Shane B Weeden/Australia/IBM] 
_______________________________________________

general mailing list
general at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081202/13f611c1/attachment-0002.htm>