[Openid-specs-ab] Feedback on UserInfo schema

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Mar 6 21:54:26 UTC 2013

I am fine with it, though how to create "formatted phone number" needs to
be clarified. Is it just how the user entered or created algorithmically?
If the later, the OP needs to have translation template for each countries
as they widely varies. As to the syntax is concerned, I prefer
phone_number_formatted instead of formatted_phone_number. Also, a +1 for
making E.164 a MUST for the machine consumption.

With respect to phone number, it just reminded me of the fact that multiple
sources expressed desire to differentiate land line phone number and mobile
phone number. Their characteristics as to the binding strength to the
subject is very different. Land line usually is only bound to the "home /
household" or "office location", the mobile phone number is much more
tightly coupled with the person / subject. So, actually, you may not want
to treat them as a single class.

So, in addition to phone_number, I would like to propose mobile_number as


2013/3/7 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>

> I would be fine with having both phone number claims.
>  "formatted_phone_number" could be the display form (just like "formatted"
> is the address display form) and "phone_number" could be an RFC 3966 phone
> number.   The "phone" scope would request both.
> What claim names is Google actually using for these values today?
> What do others think?
>                                 -- Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
> openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Breno de Medeiros
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:15 AM
> To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Feedback on UserInfo schema
> Google returns phone numbers in two different formats: The
> display-friendly displayable format that follows the user preferences on
> how they see the number, and a standard-compliant form for machines.
> The UserInfo spec documents a 'phone_number' field that appears to try to
> be both. It's the user 'preferred' phone number (indicating some allowance
> for display-friendliness) and then only RECOMMENDS format compliance.
> Option 1. Define two fields: display_phone_number and std_phone_number,
> where the latter MUST be in the E164 or RFC3966 (the latter deals with
> phone extensions as well).
> Option 2. Clarify the current language by replacing RECOMMENDED with MUST
> if the desire is to support machine use cases
> Option 3. Clarity the current language by saying that this is for display
> purposes only.
> --
> --Breno
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130307/81998020/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list