[OpenID] OpenID Discovery for Email like identifiers - Draft 0.1

[David Fuelling]

P.S. -- Just to clarify, I don't speak for the WebFinger folks and have only
been lurking on that list.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:23 PM, David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Replies inline...
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The way I see it we are the "end-users" for webfinger and XRD. Their
>> objective will be to cater to the our requirements and others like us. We
>> need not wait for them to get on with our work. Actually they can use our
>> feedback to refine and fine tune their work.
>>
>
> With regard to webfinger, that spec needs to be "specified" before we can
> use it in OpenID 2.1.  My thinking is that it would be helpful to start
> formalizing webfinger since in the OpenID 2.1 spec, there will probably just
> be a single sentence or two saying, "email-like identifiers are supported in
> OpenID discovery by using the webfinger protocol".
>
> From a specification development perspective, I'm not sure there's a lot
> more we need to do on the OpenID side when it comes to email identifiers,
> except resolve any issues relating to IPR.  Do you agree?
>
> That said, how do we resolve the IPR issues surrounding webfinger
> (basically, all the points Chris Messina mentioned in his previous
> message).  To me this hinges on the webfinger folks picking some sort of
> formalized standards process to work in, so that OpenID can use it properly.
>
> If you look at XRD, that's moving forward inside of OASIS.  OAuth is moving
> forward inside of IETF.  There's the OWF, but I'm not sure if they're ready
> to "house" a spec just yet.  And lastly, there's the OpenID Foundation
> (though admitedly this seems like an odd place to house webfinger).
>
>
>> So I think we should form a working group of people like you, who have
>> already worked on this, and others who may want to work on this.
>>
>
>> But I also agree with Chris's view that we don't need more working groups
>> and need to fold this into 2.1.
>>
>
> +1.  I don't think OpenID 2.1 Discovery needs its own working group,
> because I can see that section being only 2 sentences (I'm oversimplifying,
> but you get the idea):
>
>    1. OpenID discovery can be used on any identifier that is discoverable
>    via XRD.
>    2. Email-like identifier discovery should use webfinger.
>
> The only two reasons i can think of for the need of a separate working
>> group
>> is to maintain momentum, and to have a group people solely focussed on
>> discovery part of 2.1.
>
>
> I think the people focusing on Discovery are already alive and kicking in
> the XRD TC.  They're going to solve Discovery in a general sort of way,
> allowing OpenID to utilize it in a specific manner.  In essence, the XRD
> folks are doing most of the work already.
>
> Moving forward, we need to figure out how OpenID 2.1 is going to be able to
> use WebFinger.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090604/8a0bab51/attachment.htm>