<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;">
<div style="">In AX you can define any attribute you want. The attribute could be a URL that enables one site to request the data directly.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF322798"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> openid-specs-bounces@lists.openid.net [openid-specs-bounces@lists.openid.net] on behalf of Nat Sakimura [sakimura@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> James Henstridge<br>
<b>Cc:</b> OpenID Specs Mailing List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: So, what is an OpenID Extension?<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>Hmmm. So, there is no way we can do direct communication in an extension?
<div>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 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) mobile clients will not choke. </div>
<div>2) is going to be more secure. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In AX, there is a notion of update_url, but is that also used only for indirect communication through browser? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I feel that it is extremely limiting if we cannot do the server to server communication. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>=nat<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:01 PM, James Henstridge <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:james@jamesh.id.au" target="_blank">james@jamesh.id.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Nat Sakimura<<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com" target="_blank">sakimura@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I blogged bout the subject here:<br>
> <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/modules/wordpress/index.php?p=91" target="_blank">
http://www.sakimura.org/en/modules/wordpress/index.php?p=91</a><br>
><br>
> What would be the consensus here?<br>
<br>
</div>
My reading of the spec (and what I believe is the author's intent) is<br>
that OpenID extensions do indeed piggyback on an authentication<br>
request. The note about including the extension's type URI in XRDS is<br>
a way that an OpenID provider can advertise support for the extension.<br>
<br>
Note that in OpenID 2.0, sending openid.identifier in an<br>
authentication request is optional. So you could potentially use an<br>
extension without actually authenticating as a particular user. From<br>
section 9.1:<br>
<br>
"""<br>
"openid.claimed_id" and "openid.identity" SHALL be either both present<br>
or both absent. If neither value is present, the assertion is not<br>
about an identifier, and will contain other information in its<br>
payload, using extensions (Extensions).<br>
"""<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
James.<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>