[OpenID] Building on the OpenID PAPE specification

[Peter Williams]

Not sure about that "deal is done". Id expect a community call for comments. What the steering group can do is consider all comments and reject them, on their merits. That issue based rejection becomes part of the record, then. We thrn get passed the "anonymous designers made (uncitable)  low assurance tradeoff decisions concerning protocol security, therefore a high nist authn assurance is necessarily degraded by the very nature of openid to low/no assurance" style IA-/evaluation-time claims.

Its clear that wider discussion is warranted and merited, as your own post seeks to argue a case.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 12:03 PM
To: Brian Kelly <brian.kelly at trustbearer.com>
Cc: general at openid.net <general at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Building on the OpenID PAPE specification


Brian

I can understand why the WG would reject something that was not within
the charter. The time for you to have gotten involved would have been
at the creation of the charter. Water under the bridge now.

I read over your blog post, but I'm unclear on why an RP *needs* to
understand the kind of authentication that was used?  There is a
tendency for entities to *want* as much control as possible -- but I
don't follow the logic for why  they *need* it. Would you elaborate?

-- Dick

On 7-Oct-08, at 6:39 AM, Brian Kelly wrote:

> Dick,
>
> When we completed the first draft of PAPE-AM, we sent it to the PAPE
> specs working group list for input. It was promptly dismissed since
> it went against the PAPE WG charter, which states that only high-
> level policies should be included in the spec.
>
> At that point the PAPE-AM team decided that it would be a good idea
> to open the discussion up to the broader OpenID community to seek
> guidance on next-steps. I encourage the PAPE WG folks to comment on
> this as well.
>
> To your second point about how the RP should not care about how the
> user was authenticated, I agree that the trust needs to start at the
> OP. The main issue we were trying to address in PAPE-AM is that
> there is too much ambiguity in the high level policies as stated in
> PAPE today. This ambiguity makes it difficult for both OPs and RPs
> to understand what kind of authentication was actually used.
>
> Brian
>
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>>
>> Brian: did you participate in the PAPE spec? That would have been
>> the place to have brought up this issue.
>>
>> Although I did not participate in the PAPE specification (only so
>> much time) -- I was supportive of the high level policies vs
>> specific technologies. The RP really does not (well, *should* not)
>> care about how the user was authenticated, just about how much
>> certainty the OP has that it is the user. It is the OP making the
>> assertion after all. Keep in mind I can have an OP that says that
>> all the factors were used, even if they were not.
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>>
>> On 6-Oct-08, at 2:28 PM, Brian Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> A few months ago, some members from the OATH community and I got
>>> together to take a fresh look at the PAPE spec, what it was trying
>>> to
>>> accomplish, and how well it could be implemented. We started holding
>>> semi-weekly conference calls and over the period of a couple
>>> months we
>>> drafted up a slightly new take on PAPE.
>>>
>>> The main difference is that we defined a specific set of
>>> authentication methods, rather than only using high-level policies.
>>> After long discussions we found that there was too much ambiguity in
>>> the high-level policies as defined today in PAPE. We created a draft
>>> of our modified specification, termed PAPE-Authentication Mechanisms
>>> (PAPE-AM), and we are beginning to socialize the concepts in that
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> I published a blog post summarizing our motivations, and wanted to
>>> share it with the greater OpenID mailing list.
>>>
>>> http://openidtrustbearer.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/building-on-the-openid-pape-specification/
>>>
>>> I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of the readers on this
>>> mailing
>>> list. Please respond publicly, or feel free to contact me directly.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Kelly
>>> TrustBearer Labs
>>> http://trustbearer.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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