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

Fri Jun 5 02:02:25 UTC 2009

It's at least not clear to me that we'd finish our own version of
WebFinger/XRD discovery before the groups already invested in those
protocols...! What track record do we have in getting specs to market in the
last 6-12 months?
In any case, I don't think that any of this prevents us from advancing a
collection of use cases on the wiki *in advance* of starting the WG. There's
nothing to stop that work, so I would highly recommend spending energy and
effort there, rather than justifying that on this list.

Work should speak for itself; once momentum exists, then I think it'll be
easier to justify and get a real WG off the ground (either for 2.1 or some
other related effort).

Chris

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:

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

-- 
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Website: http://factoryjoe.com
Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090604/eea200e9/attachment.htm>