[Openid-specs-ab] Feedback on UserInfo schema

nov matake nov at matake.jp
Thu Mar 7 15:33:34 UTC 2013


Does "phone" scope include "mobile_number" claim?
or do we need another scope for mobile phone?

I think we need "mobile_phone" scope.

On 2013/03/07, at 6:54, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 well. 
> 
> Nat
> 
> 
> 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
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130308/d02985d5/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list