[OpenID] [SPAM]Re: [LIKELY_SPAM]Re: [LIKELY_SPAM]Re: Combining Google & Yahoo user experience research

Mon Oct 27 19:10:15 UTC 2008

Who said anything about XML? I merely suggested not overloading the 
attribute name with some binary assessment of assurance.

Does OpenID authentication have the RP ask for an identifier explicitly 
labelled as 'verified'? Or does it ask for an identifier, with the 
specifics of the mechanism by which the OP is to verify ownership 
deferred to PAPE?

Will VerifiedShippingAddress be next?

Peter Williams wrote:
> Sticking the string verified in front of a attrvalue, vs sticking some xml nested "confirmation" tagging in front...of the same attr value. What's the difference (excepting type theory and security engineering methods)?
>
> If the conforming processor treats one prefix as another, semantically, there is none. All one needs the unambiguous syntax.
>
> Simplistic prefixes feel more like openid culture. Don't want to make openid turn into saml, though semantic convergence would be nice, particularly for gatewaying.
>
> Not sure how much convergence there really is yet within the saml community itself, tho, the more I look into it, even over basics like metadata and key management. jar hell seems to have evolved into profile hell....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Madsen <paulmadsen at rogers.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:10 PM
> To: George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com>
> Cc: general at openid.net <general at openid.net>
> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [OpenID] [LIKELY_SPAM]Re: [LIKELY_SPAM]Re: Combining Google & Yahoo user experience research
>
> George, seems to me that the PAPE model for expressing that an email address be/is 'verified' is very different (and preferred) to explicitly labeling the attribute name.
>
> Stick the string 'verified' in front of an attribute name, and the implication is that it is somehow qualitatively different than a 'non-verified' attribute. And of course it (unless supplemented with something equivalent to PAPE) hides the detail as to how the verification occurred.
>
> FWIW, I don't think PAPE is actually the place for this sort of attribute assurance information ... but the model could be reused.
>
> paul
>
> George Fletcher wrote:
>
> I think the difference here is that the process that the RP desires is
> something like...
>
> 1. have the user enter their email address
> 2. determine that the domain owner of the email address supports "email
> verification"
> 3. use a pop-up window to direct the user to the domain owner's "email
> verification" endpoint
> 4. have the user prove "ownership" of the entered email address
> 5. return verified state to the RP
>
> I would also like to see either a PAPE policy or an AX attribute that
> signifies "verified email" where if the RP trusts the OP the user
> doesn't have to do any additional authentications.
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> Nat wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps you can construct a PAPE policy that signifies the verified
> email and send the email by SREG.
>
> =nat at TOKYO via iPhone
>
> On 2008/10/27, at 21:21, George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com><mailto:gffletch at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> In the discussions I've had, there was one other use case. That is a
> site that isn't ready yet to support the full OpenID cross-domain SSO
> concept, yet wants to streamline their registration process such that
> they don't have to use the out-of-band email verification mechanism.  In
> this case, a small extension to the OpenID protocol (similar in concept
> to AX) could be constructed that would allow a user to verify their
> ownership over the email address using a "synchronous" process vs the
> current async one.  So, if the RP's only concern is to verify that the
> user "owns" the email address they've specified, then the RP doesn't
> want the email address mapped to an OpenID, they want to know that the
> email address is valid and the user knows the password to it.
>
> This use case isn't really related to OpenID other than it's possible to
> use the current flow and protocol (with a small extension) to implement
> it. If AX is about exchanging attributes, this would be an extension to
> "verify" attributes:)
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> Chris Messina wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:03 AM, George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com><mailto:gffletch at aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think there are at least two use cases involving email addresses
> that
> can be easily confused...
>
> 1. Use the email address as an indicator or pointer to a valid
> OpenID as
> the email address is an identifier that the user currently remembers.
>  - this is the use case that EAUT is targeting and, if I understood
> correctly, what Chris is discussing as well
>
>
>
> Yes. The point is, until MySpace users become familiar with using
> their "MySpace OpenID" or "OpenID" (depending on how we recommend
> MySpace market this behavior), we have ample reason to make it
> possible for people to use identifiers with which they're already
> familiar and use in common practice to sign in to web services:
> namely, email addresses.
>
> It also would provide a means to "upgrade" legacy accounts keyed to
> email addresses to use remote authentication via OpenID... reducing
> the need to remember discreet passwords (or sharing a unique password
> between sites).
>
> Although there will be increasing numbers of URL-formatted/based
> identifiers out there for people to use for OpenID authentication, it
> seems that a great way to simplify OpenID's offering and to make it
> more palatable to those who argue that they identify themselves by an
> email address is indeed to figure out the best way to enable that
> possibility, and to disarm that argument.
>
>
>
>
> 2. Verify an email address for those RP's that want/need/require a
> "verified email address"
>  - this is more about the RP getting a verified identity attribute
>  - the expectation is that an OpenID based flow would allow a user who
> has to verify their email address to do it in "real time" rather than
> the async email method used today
>
>
>
> A common complaint that I hear from people using OpenID to sign up for
> new services comes down to an "OpenID tax": once they've successfully
> authenticated with OpenID (which definitely isn't quite as fool proof
> as I would hope), they're immediately asked to provide an email
> address and then to validate it, receiving an out-of-band token. The
> feedback I hear is that most people would rather just sign up with
> their email address in the first place than have to deal with this
> silly process.
>
> This will continue to be a valid criticism unless or until we are able
> to make URL-based verified identifiers more useful than email
> addresses to RPs.
>
>
>
>
>
> I believe we need to keep these two use cases separate because the
> intentions/outcome is really quite different.
>
>
>
> For clarify of conversation, +1.
>
> Though solving both issues with one protocol/approach would be
> ultimately ideal.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> SitG Admin wrote:
>
>
>
> I'd guess that a contributing factor here is that most OPs don't
> support
> passing the email address via SREG.
>
>
>
>
> Since the discussion here seems to be about not only verifying E-mail
> addresses, but using them in place of a URI, does it matter whether a
> RP supports *receiving* an E-mail address via SREG?
>
> I don't want users' E-mail. I don't *need* users' E-mail. I don't
> care. Is the requirement (that a user be able to receive E-mail at
> their address) going to require me to be able to send them E-mail so
> I can confirm their OpenID?
>
> -Shade
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net<mailto:general at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net<mailto:general at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chief Architect                   AIM:  gffletch
> Identity Services                 Work: george.fletcher at corp.aol.com<mailto:george.fletcher at corp.aol.com>
> AOL LLC                           Home: gffletch at aol.com<mailto:gffletch at aol.com>
> Mobile: +1-703-462-3494
> Office: +1-703-265-2544           Blog: http://practicalid.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net<mailto:general at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> [cid:part1.01040502.00040806 at rogers.com]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1747 - Release Date: 26/10/2008 9:27 AM
>   

-- 
ConnectID <http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081027/2f692d43/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gMwy.1.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 11322 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081027/2f692d43/attachment-0002.gif>