Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter Proposal

[Paul Trevithick]

Paul, 

Yes, ICF Schema WG did introduce a Œverified¹ ³meta² claim. But it isn¹t
pretty. And it isn¹t without problems as you pointed out. The approach was
driven by sheer pragmatism. We had a card issuer who needed SOME way to
express this semantic, the ICF Schema WG doesn¹t play ³beat cop,² and the
solution had to work within the rather limiting ³flat² structure of i-card
claims. 

--PaulT


On 1/26/09 6:18 AM, "Paul Madsen" <paulmadsen at rogers.com> wrote:

> FWIW, the separate 'verified' field is the approach the Infocard community
> took 
> 
> https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog
> 
> They also allow the particular verification method used to be listed
> 
> https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods
> 
> One drawback of this method is that all claims sent together get lumped
> together into a single bucket wrt verification
> 
> paul
>  
> 
> Martin Atkins wrote:
>> Henrik Biering wrote:
>>  
>>> Agree! 
>>> If the range of SReg attributes is expanded, however, I would suggest to add
>>> phone number (incl. quality as suggested for email) and possibly street+city
>>> address line(s). That would make it possible to fill in a somewhat larger
>>> part of typical registration forms.
>>>  
>>>  
>>  
>> It might be good to apply the quality thing to all of the fields.
>>  
>> One approach might be to add a "verified" argument that contains a list of
>> names of fields that the OP has verified in some way.
>>  
>> However, I think the SREG spec itself needs work done since the 1.1 draft
>> (that was never published) has a bunch of problems. It might be better to do
>> such work in a separate working group; I already have an updated 1.1 draft
>> with some of the problems from the current 1.1 draft fixed that could
>> potentially be used as a basis, though I'll need to dig it out since I'm not
>> sure what I checked it in to.
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>>  
>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090127/db2d51d8/attachment-0002.htm>