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

[Santosh Rajan]

I think you have missed the point.

There is a need for developing a webfinger use-case vis-a-vis OpenID. Your
assumption that you can "plug and play" it into OpenID is too simplistic. I
can see a potential "chicken and the egg" situation developing here.

What if webfinger/xrd is stalled precisely because they don't have enough
use-case/feedback to finalize their specs? 
What if webfinger/xrd is stalled because they are stuck between differing
viewpoints? In this case our feedback may come in  handy to resolve the
issue.
What if webfinger/xrd is stalled because of some other reason we can't think
of?

Are you all confident that the above is not the case and that we can happily
wait for webfinger/xrd to finish their work and simply plug and play it into
2.1?

I think the idea that we should sit here and do nothing is ridiculous.

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


-----

Santosh Rajan
http://santrajan.blogspot.com http://santrajan.blogspot.com 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/OpenID-Discovery-for-Email-like-identifiers---Draft-0.1-tp23832524p23880571.html
Sent from the OpenID - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.