[Openid-specs-ab] Spec call notes 17-Oct-13

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Oct 17 16:18:49 UTC 2013


Please add to the note that Nat has pointed out that this is not the time
to add a new feature that it can and should be dealt with extension.

Also, John has pointed out that expanding the feature will cause
interoperability problems.

As part of the AOL's OpenID 2.0 provider explanation, it was pointed out
that the UI would show flash and button, and that was the reason we have
dropped it from the current Connect spec.
In fact, not only AOL but many others did it in OpenID 2.0 as that was the
only option, and it was also something that many of us wanted to escape
from.

The reason sited in support of form POSTing were as follows:

1) It is done by SAML and WS.
2) Fragment would not be able to hold large payload.
3) If it is not there, implementers will do stupid things like including
access token in the query parameter.
4) If the browser is not Javascript enabled, it is the last resort.

In the above, 1) does not make sense. The web technology has advanced so
much since they were designed. We have considered the option previously and
dropped.
As to 2) is concerned, the statement is false. Fragment can hold pretty big
payload. It was tested during the self-issued testing, and we found out
that the limit is actually pretty large. We were sending photos as a claim
in id_token as a result of it. (Note: I need to double check - since we
were concerned mostly on mobile platform, we may not have tested IE.)
The reason 3) is not a good one either. We should just write an
implementers NOTE that they should never do this.
As a result, only the credible reason is 4). However, this means that a lot
of other things at the destination site will break, too.

I understand that there are people who want to do it.
Even some of NRI's internal developers wants to do it.
However, that is not a good enough reason to get it into the core at this
point in time.
In addition, there will be bunch of moving parts that we have to fix if we
were to do it.
We should not do it in three days. We should take more time to consider
various implications.
We are finalizing the core spec now. The cut off date is end of this week.

It should be done as an extension. I oppose to do it in the core.
Our priority to get the Core out of the door, now.



2013/10/17 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>

>  Spec call notes 17-Oct-13****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike Jones****
>
> Brian Campbell****
>
> George Fletcher****
>
> John Bradley****
>
> Nat Sakimura****
>
> Edmund Jay****
>
> ** **
>
> Agenda:****
>
>                Open Issues****
>
>                Multiple response type requests returning values in ways
> other than fragments****
>
>                Document Restructuring and Review****
>
> ** **
>
> Open Issues:****
>
>                #873: session 4.1. Can we use opbs with http (not httponly)
> ****
>
>                               We developed proposed text for this****
>
>                #879 & #880: Hosting self-issued.me****
>
>                               John will get the cheapest Amazon VM and
> give Edmund access to it****
>
> ** **
>
> Multiple response type requests returning values in ways other than
> fragments****
>
>                Microsoft has asked for a POST binding, like WS-Federation
> and SAML have****
>
>                Ping has an extra response_type component x_post****
>
>                               This causes the responses to POST to be
> returned as form-encoded body content****
>
>                Google has a way of registering clients to use a
> postMessage binding****
>
>                               They do that by registering a JavaScript
> origin, rather than response_type****
>
>                AOL's OpenID 2.0 provider often uses the POST response
> because of large AX responses****
>
>                John had proposed a registration parameter for this:****
>
>                               redirect_type   fragment | POST | postMessage
> ****
>
>                This would be discoverable as****
>
>                               redirect_types_supported****
>
>                Another reason for this is to not hit fragment size limits*
> ***
>
>                Mike will file a bug on this to make a concrete proposal***
> *
>
>                We will discuss this at the Monday meeting****
>
> ** **
>
> Document Restructuring and Review:****
>
>                Mike posted a Word version of the Core spec with tracked
> changes turned on****
>
>                               People are requested to mark it up with
> specific proposed changes this week****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131018/5983179a/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list