[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] URL claim in the Cardspace specifications
|
Agreed on all counts. XRI (and thus i-names)
has always been neutral with regard to the authenciation/transfer “channel”
or “tunnel”, because it’s purpose is richer/stronger
identification of the endpoints to an identity transaction. I look forward to discussing further next
week. =Drummond From: This said, I would
like to see more people at Microsoft get interested in i-names, and this is
something we can work toward. Of course, the more i-names becomes adopted
on the internet, the easier it is to get it adopted within Microsoft. You
know the drill. From: Arun Nanda I agree with Kim on
this. The Information Card model, and consequently the CardSpace channel, has
been deliberately designed to make it token format and content agnostic. Using
the OpenID managed card approach, for example, would allow full flexibility on
the (token) payload that results from using such a managed card. From: My thinking was that
Webpage would be the web page one uses for his identity – perhaps I’m
simplistic in my thinking but I suspect a lot of ordinary users jump to the
same conclusions, and not understand the niceties of the distinctions between a
bunch of URIs. But I’m happy
to discuss and hear what you need. During the period
leading up to the “announce” I was out talking with sxip, janrain
and verisign about having OpenID managed cards that carry the normal OpenID
payloads - but do this through the CardSpace tunnel rather than through
redirects. I’ve built a demo with shipping CardSpace v1, and I
think everyone who has seen it found it quite convincing (scott Kveton has
blogged about it). If OpenID were to
support this approach, then out of the starting gate, the OpenId managed
card can have all the appropriate XRI identifiers or semantic tags. Let’s talk
about this next week. I think it has great potential for solving the
problems you point out. From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] Gabe, I agree completely. Now that we know what
the actual claim (on the MS self-asserted card schema), the lack of sufficient
semantics to recognize that the value of the “webpage” claim is an
OpenID URL, let alone a XRI, is the first key issue I think we need to discuss
with Kim, Mike, Arun, and the CardSpace team. I’ll work with them to arrange a
meeting as soon as we can. =Drummond From: Gabe Wachob
[mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] Just because the “webpage”
slot takes a URI, that doesn’t mean to me that it should take an XRI
– an XRI identifies a person, concept, place, anything, whereas a webpage
is, well, a webpage, and nothing more. That being said, if that’s the
easiest way to stick in XRI’s, I guess we could use it. (the xri.net
version? The raw version?) I’m shocked that our friends at
Microsoft didn’t include a separate slot for an iname!!!! It will be
there in version 3, right? ;-)
-Gabe From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] XRI & XDI TC members: In following up on Laurie’s and my
action item, we received the following clarification from Mike Jones and Arun
Nanda about the supported claims in Microsoft’s schema for self-asserted
CardSpace information cards. There is in fact a claim for a URL, referred to as
a “webpage” (last one on the list below). This should help us in our discussions of
XRIs both as claims identifiers and claims values. Thanks again to Laurie for her excellent
research on this topic, and to Paul for his help. =Drummond
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]