<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The InfoCard community adopted this approach not because it was
preferred, but because no standard syntax for attaching verification attributes
to individual SAML claims had been agreed upon by that time. I hope that
we can rectify that shortfall sometime soon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> --
Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> specs-bounces@openid.net
[mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Madsen<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 26, 2009 3:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Atkins<br>
<b>Cc:</b> OpenID Specs Mailing List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter
Proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>FWIW, the separate 'verified' field is the approach the
Infocard community took <br>
<br>
<a href="https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog">https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog</a><br>
<br>
They also allow the particular verification method used to be listed<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods">https://informationcard.net/wiki/index.php/Claim_Catalog#Verification_Methods</a><br>
<br>
One drawback of this method is that all claims sent together get lumped
together into a single bucket wrt verification<br>
<br>
paul<br>
<br>
<br>
Martin Atkins wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Henrik Biering wrote: <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Agree! <br>
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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
It might be good to apply the quality thing to all of the fields. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
specs mailing list <br>
<a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a> <br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Paul Madsen<br>
e:paulmadsen @ ntt-at.com<br>
p:613-482-0432<br>
m:613-282-8647<br>
web:connectid.blogspot.com<br>
</span><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1"><span
style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=400 height=82 id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:image001.gif@01C97FFF.3D9C20C0" alt=ConnectID></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>