Hi guys, <div><br></div><div>somehow I only get sporadic messages from this mailing list (I'll have to dig through my spam settings, etc, to find out what's going on there), so I read the various responses on the web archives. Let me try to respond to them:</div>
<div><br></div><div>- XMLDSIG vs. other kinds of signatures: This is exactly the kind of discussion going on at the XRI TC right now. There are those on the TC that think xmldsig with constrained c14n will work, and those that think that this is still too complicated. You're welcome to join the TC and participate in the discussion.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Google "gatewaying" users through itself (by hosting host-meta files for domains at Google): we have no intention of gatewaying users through Google. When a domain hosts its own host-meta, the discovery will of course just work. We simply asked ourselves the question: How can we give all our Google Apps users an OpenID with the least amount of work required on the part of the Google Apps domain admins? Domains should host their own host-meta. If they don't (and many won't), RPs should find a way to still perform discovery for that user. Trying Google _first_, and then the domain, will in the vast majority of cases result in lower latency from user-supplied-identifier to discovery information than the other way 'round. But RPs can do whatever they want. They could, for example, try both in parallel and go with whatever host-meta comes back first (be that from Google, from another hosting provider, or from the actual domain). </div>
<div><br></div><div>- Having said all that, what I was trying to figure out in this thread was that assuming that a provider wants to launch a proof-of-concept implementation of a feature that I think we all agree is needed in OpenID (in this case, better discovery), what namespace should the provider use for the various pieces in the protocol that haven't officially been approved yet. The responses that actually tried to address that question seemed to think that <a href="http://experimental.openid.net">http://experimental.openid.net</a> was a good idea, but that some sort of process might be needed to hand out chunks of that namespace. I assume that that process should make sure that the provider in question is making a good-faith effort to actually contribute to the OpenID community during the further development of the feature in question, as opposed to grabbing just a chunk of semi-official-sounding namespace? I'm a wee bit concerned that the processes that people want to see in place for this might take a bit of time to establish (feel free to prove me wrong by setting up a registry, etc!), so I'm wondering whether in this case we could follow the spirit of the yet-to-be-established process (assuming I captured it correctly), as opposed to the letter (which doesn't exist yet), and just agree that it is ok for us, in this case, to use that namespace. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers, </div><div><br>Dirk.</div><div><br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Breno de Medeiros <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:breno@google.com">breno@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">A charter proposal for the WG already exists.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM, David Recordon<<a href="mailto:david@sixapart.com">david@sixapart.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Should this experimental namespace only apply to work being done by OpenID<br>
> working groups? I'm very supportive of pushing the standards forward via<br>
> prototypes, but that should be done as part of the OpenID community instead<br>
> of by a single company.<br>
><br>
> I'd be very happy to help get a discovery working group spun up and charter<br>
> them to modernize OpenID 2.0's discovery process.<br>
><br>
> --David<br>
><br>
> On Jul 10, 2009, at 11:58 AM, George Fletcher wrote:<br>
><br>
>> +1 to <a href="http://experimental.openid.net" target="_blank">http://experimental.openid.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> It would be good to add this to the "repository" work Breno and John are<br>
>> doing as having a registry for experimental URIs would be good as well.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> George<br>
>><br>
>> Dirk Balfanz wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> [+<a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a>> for a broader audience]<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Dirk Balfanz <<a href="mailto:balfanz@google.com">balfanz@google.com</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:balfanz@google.com">balfanz@google.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi guys,<br>
>>> Google would like to launch a feature in which we're allowing our<br>
>>> Google Apps hosted domains to become OpenID providers. The<br>
>>> authentication part of it is pretty simple - Google is already<br>
>>> logging in users to their apps, so we can also host an OP endpoint<br>
>>> for those domains and send assertions back to Relying Parties.<br>
>>> What is more difficult is the discovery part. We have been working<br>
>>> with the XRI TC to define a XRD-based discovery protocol that<br>
>>> would allow this kind of hosting of discovery documents on behalf<br>
>>> of our customers.<br>
>>> We believe that providing proof-of-concept implementations drives<br>
>>> standardization processes forward, so in this spirit we want to<br>
>>> launch this feature in the near future, using a discovery protocol<br>
>>> that as far as we can tell meets all the requirements of what the<br>
>>> XRI TC is currently converging on, but which has not been vetted<br>
>>> as an official standard (it's a chicken and egg thing - without<br>
>>> PoC no standards, without standards by definition no<br>
>>> standards-compliant implementations).<br>
>>><br>
>>> While we were tossing around ideas<br>
>>> <<a href="http://markmail.org/message/ixc5led2lobdwij2" target="_blank">http://markmail.org/message/ixc5led2lobdwij2</a>>in the<br>
>>> standardization committees we just used random identifiers for new<br>
>>> XML namespaces, etc. that we would need for this discovery<br>
>>> protocol. Now that we're about to launch we need to decide what to<br>
>>> call these things. We would like to use a namespace<br>
>>> in <a href="http://specs.openid.net/." target="_blank">http://specs.openid.net/.</a>.. because we want this kind of<br>
>>> discovery protocol to be part of OpenID, but we can't really use<br>
>>> them because we don't have a next-generation discovery protocol yet.<br>
>>> So what should we use? How<br>
>>> about <a href="http://experimental.openid.net/." target="_blank">http://experimental.openid.net/.</a>.. ? That way, Relying<br>
>>> Parties know that what we're trying to do is be a part of the<br>
>>> OpenID community and bring the protocol forward. On the other<br>
>>> hand, this would also be a signal to the RP that they're using a<br>
>>> feature that has not been vetted as a standard yet.<br>
>>> For example, a discovery document for a domain <a href="http://balfanz.net" target="_blank">balfanz.net</a><br>
>>> <<a href="http://balfanz.net" target="_blank">http://balfanz.net</a>> at Google might look like this (notice the<br>
>>> "experimental" namespace and the XML elements using it):<br>
>>><br>
>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><br>
>>> <xrds:XRDS xmlns:xrds="xri://$xrds" xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)"><br>
>>> <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="<a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#</a>"><br>
>>> <ds:SignedInfo><br>
>>> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod<br>
>>> Algorithm="<a href="http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/2009/01#canonicalize-raw-octets" target="_blank">http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/2009/01#canonicalize-raw-octets</a>"<br>
>>> /><br>
>>> <ds:SignatureMethod<br>
>>> Algorithm="<a href="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1</a>" /><br>
>>> </ds:SignedInfo><br>
>>> <ds:KeyInfo><br>
>>> <ds:X509Data><br>
>>> <ds:X509Certificate><br>
>>> MIICgjCCA...<br>
>>> </ds:X509Certificate><br>
>>> <ds:X509Certificate><br>
>>> MIICsDCCAhmgAwIB...<br>
>>> </ds:X509Certificate><br>
>>> </ds:X509Data><br>
>>> </ds:KeyInfo><br>
>>> </ds:Signature><br>
>>> <XRD><br>
>>> <CanonicalID><a href="http://balfanz.net" target="_blank">balfanz.net</a> <<a href="http://balfanz.net" target="_blank">http://balfanz.net</a>></CanonicalID><br>
>>> <Service priority="0"><br>
>>> <Type><a href="http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server" target="_blank">http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/server</a></Type><br>
>>> <Type><a href="http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0" target="_blank">http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0</a></Type><br>
>>> <Type><a href="http://specs.openid.net/extensions/pape/1.0" target="_blank">http://specs.openid.net/extensions/pape/1.0</a></Type><br>
>>> <URI><a href="https://www.google.com/a/balfanz.net/o8/ud?be=o8" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/a/balfanz.net/o8/ud?be=o8</a></URI><br>
>>> </Service><br>
>>> <Service priority="0"<br>
>>> xmlns:experimental="<a href="http://experimental.openid.net/google/2009/07/xmlns/" target="_blank">http://experimental.openid.net/google/2009/07/xmlns/</a>"><br>
>>> <Type><a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby" target="_blank">http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby</a></Type><br>
>>> <MediaType>application/xrds+xml</MediaType><br>
>>><br>
>>> <experimental:URITemplate><a href="https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri={%uri}" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri={%uri}</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> <<a href="https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri=%7B%uri%7D" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/user-xrds?uri=%7B%uri%7D</a>></experimental:URITemplate><br>
>>> <experimental:NextAuthority><a href="http://hosted-id.google.com" target="_blank">hosted-id.google.com</a><br>
>>> <<a href="http://hosted-id.google.com" target="_blank">http://hosted-id.google.com</a>></experimental:NextAuthority><br>
>>> </Service><br>
>>> </XRD><br>
>>> </xrds:XRDS><br>
>>><br>
>>> What do you guys think?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dirk.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<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" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>
>>><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" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</a><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> general mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
--Breno<br>
<br>
+1 (650) 214-1007 desk<br>
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)<br>
MTV-41-3 : 383-A<br>
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></div>