[OpenID] OpenID + Government

[John Bradley]

Peter,

The Shibboleth SSO is also part of this GSA project and is governed by  
the same TFAP that openID and infocard are.

The project owes a debt to the pioneering efforts of the INCommon  
academic federation for laying the groundwork for us to follow.

All three federations have worked together closely to make progress.

One day people will release me from my NDAs and I can give people  
there proper credit.

PS Scott Cantor doesn't hate openID and is working with Will to  
support it in Shibboleth.
He like myself sometimes overstates things to make a point:)

John B.

On 11-Aug-09, at 7:22 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

> Can we also add saml (and saml2) on the list of websso protocols  
> proscibed (for now) from making physical presence claims?
>
> If so, problem solved. I simply noted infocard and openid were  
> excluded, whereas saml, wsfed & Kerberos (& global platform) were  
> apparently not.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:29 PM, "John Bradley" <john.bradley at wingaa.com<mailto:john.bradley at wingaa.com 
> >> wrote:
>
> Peter, Brett
>
> As a member of Liberty, Kantara, ICF, and OIDF.   I can say that I  
> have never seen any indication of Liberty plotting against openID or  
> info-card.  (I do go to most of the secret meetings)
>
> The issue with physical access is more one of not trying to boil the  
> ocean.
>
> There is real desire by real government RPs to use open technologies  
> and work with commercial identity providers.  There are RPs I am  
> working with who want this yesterday.
>
> This first step is hard enough.  Many people have been working hard  
> for many months.
>
> One of the ways we have been able to make progress is by limiting  
> the scope.
>
> We could have done physical access, LoA 4,  p-cards and other things.
>
> The initial program by the GSA is a start not an end to the process.
>
> There will be changes to the initial profiles and additional  
> profiles as time and requirements permit.
>
> This first step is a scary amount of work,  give us time please.
>
> John B.
>
> On 11-Aug-09, at 5:04 PM, <mailto:openid-general-request at lists.openid.net 
> > openid-general-request at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-general-request at lists.openid.net 
> > wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:43:29 -0700
> From: Peter Williams <<mailto:pwilliams at rapattoni.com>pwilliams at rapattoni.com 
> <mailto:pwilliams at rapattoni.com>>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] OpenID + Government
> To: Brett McDowell <<mailto:email at brettmcdowell.com>email at brettmcdowell.com 
> <mailto:email at brettmcdowell.com>>
> Cc: OpenID List <<mailto:general at openid.net>general at openid.net<mailto:general at openid.net 
> >>
> Message-ID: <<mailto:7911DEBA-C04B-4CC7-8A4B-967626522E9A at rapattoni.com 
> >7911DEBA-C04B-4CC7-8A4B-967626522E9A at rapattoni.com<mailto:7911DEBA-C04B-4CC7-8A4B-967626522E9A at rapattoni.com 
> >>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> If the infocard stack is technically reputable, can you explain why an
> accredited provider would be excluded from using it (and openid) from
> making assertions of physical presence?
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net<mailto:general at lists.openid.net>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general