[Openid-specs-ab] Attribute Exchange w/ OpenID Connect?

[Torsten Lodderstedt]

>What sort of tracking are you trying to stop?
>
>If it is give me an attribute for the current person without
>establishing a session that would be an ephemeral single use
>identifier.   (No session management)

That's what I want. Would this require a new user id type?

Setting this per client id is fine.

Regards,
Torsten.

>If you want to have a session with the person based on claims but not
>establish a persistent account then it would be per session ephemeral. 
>(session management/ change user is possible)
>
>user_id_type in registration allows the identifier type to be set per
>client.
>
>We talked about having it in the request object, but allowing a client
>to change it per request was seen as overkill.
>Most IdP will restrict what a client can ask for based on some privacy
>policy, so the discovery/registration mechanism was thought to be
>sufficient.
>
>Nothing stops a site from having multiple client ID if it needs to get
>different identifier types.  Having the different client ID stops a
>client from asking for PPID and getting connect and then asking for a
>public identifier in a later call where the user is not notified.
>
>John B.
>On 2012-11-30, at 1:19 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt
><torsten at lodderstedt.net> wrote:
>
>> We don't want the RP to track the user. So we would need to issue
>different user_id for every request. But I don't think is fit into the
>Connect philosophy.
>> 
>> regards,
>> Torsten.
>> 
>> Am 30.11.2012 17:11, schrieb Justin Richer:
>>> Would using pairwise identifiers make this work?
>>> 
>>> -- Justin
>>> 
>>> On 11/30/2012 11:09 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> in some cases we want to provide RPs with attributes but no
>user_id, which is similar to AX. How can this be realized in Connect?
>The scope value "openid" activates the OpenID mode at the AS but it
>also requests access to the user_id Claim. If we do not want to
>disclose a user_id, does this mean we need to define a new, distinct
>scope for our use case, e.g. "attribute_x"?
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> Torsten.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab