specs Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1

[David Recordon]

So let's change the process!  You're a board member, we're all members  
of the Foundation, let's do it instead of complain about it. :)

I think the larger reason is no one has stepped up like they would  
need to do as an editor to the next version of OpenID Authentication  
given how large of a time commitment that it is.  There are plenty of  
things in the next version that we should remove, others things we  
should add, exploratory work around things like discovery and how  
OpenID interacts with OAuth.  While I would like to do it, I know that  
I don't have the time by myself.

--David

On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

> I think enough people wants to do artifact binding, including Google.
> All the mobile carriers in Japan wants to do it as well.
> So what is stopping us?
>
> It is probably the "process".
>
> It is way top heavy.
>
> Why did they need to create OAuth on their own IPR regime?
> Because, OpenID did not move fast enough.
>
> Can we move fast enough? No. With the current process, we just cannot.
> It probably is more practical to start the discussion in Kantara,  
> OASIS, or IETF.
> OIDF is the most heavyweight and slowest of all.
>
> We will start seeing cavitation phenomenon on OpenID soon if we do  
> not change our course quickly.
>
> Nat
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:34 AM, John Bradley <jbradley at mac.com>  
> wrote:
> Nat,
>
> You can do identity less openID checkid_imediate requests to invoke  
> extensions like AX.
>
> That doesn't let you piggyback AX on a association request though.
>
> I am sympathetic to your problem of wanting an artifact binding for  
> openID.
>
> The reality is that we need to create a artifact binding in 2.1  
> rather than try and slip it through some loose wording in the 2.0  
> spec.
>
> OpenID 2.0 doesn't support artifact binding.
>
> If it did then that would have helped me with the LoA 2 justification.
>
> Artifact binding will add complexity and not everyone will support it.
>
> Some may ask if we add artifact binding, signatures and encryption  
> are we not reinventing SAML Web SSO, or something of equal complexity?
>
> I am not against doing it if that is the chosen direction.   However  
> I would like to see a full and open discussion on it.
>
> John B.
>
> On 13-Aug-09, at 8:03 AM, openid-specs-request at lists.openid.net wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:03:12 +0900
>> From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: So, what is an OpenID Extension?
>> To: James Henstridge <james at jamesh.id.au>
>> Cc: OpenID Specs Mailing List <specs at openid.net>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<bf26e2340908130803h390947eya0f6af01c65daee5 at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hmmm. So, there is no way we can do direct communication in an  
>> extension? What
>> I want to do is to send the large payload directly between the  
>> servers and
>> move only the reference through OpenID Authn request and response  
>> so that
>>
>> 1) mobile clients will not choke.
>> 2) is going to be more secure.
>>
>> In AX, there is a notion of update_url, but is that also used only  
>> for
>> indirect communication through browser?
>>
>> I feel that it is extremely limiting if we cannot do the server to  
>> server
>> communication.
>>
>> If that is not a possibility, then I should probably do the server  
>> to server
>> portion elsewhere, and just do the reference/artifact moving  
>> through OpenID
>> AuthN, but that sounds like OpenID strangling itself.
>>
>> =nat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090813/84fce6eb/attachment.htm>