[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] LocalID and CanonicalID in openID blog post from today.
I fixed the spelling mistake. I am in good shape if that was the only one. In the plaxo group we are digging into the specifics of the CID issue. We have community authority servers in the wild allowing people to set anything they like as CID. ie @xrid*hacker returning <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<XRDS ref="xri://@xrid*hacker" xmlns="xri://$xrds">
<XRD xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)">
<Query>*xrid</Query>
<Status code="100"/>
<Expires>2008-02-22T18:04:11.000Z</Expires>
<ProviderID>xri://@</ProviderID>
<LocalID priority="10">!94BB.B642.A6F3.CD9</LocalID>
<CanonicalID priority="10">@!94BB.B642.A6F3.CD9</CanonicalID>
<Service priority="10">
<Type select="true">xri://$res*auth*($v*2.0)</Type>
<ProviderID>xri://@xrid</ProviderID>
<Path match="null"/>
<MediaType>application/xrds+xml;trust=none</MediaType>
<URI priority="10">http://auth.xrid.net/</URI>
</Service>
<Service priority="100">
<Type match="none"/>
<Path match="none"/>
<MediaType match="none"/>
</Service>
</XRD>
<XRD xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)">
<Query>*hacker</Query>
<Status code="241">Requested service endpoint not found.</Status>
<CanonicalID>@xrid*hacker</CanonicalID>
<Service priority="10">
<Type select="true">xri://$res*auth*($v*2.0)</Type>
<Path match="null"/>
<MediaType>application/xrds+xml;trust=none</MediaType>
<URI priority="10">http://auth.xrid.net/!278/</URI>
</Service>
<Service priority="1">
<Type select="true">http://specs.openid.net/auth/2.0/signon</Type>
<URI append="qxri">http://www.myopenid.com/server?qxri=</URI>
<LocalID>http://polyonymous.myopenid.com/</LocalID>
</Service>
<Service priority="5">
<Type select="true">http://openid.net/signon/1.0</Type>
<URI>http://www.klever.net/openid/server</URI>
<Delegate xmlns="http://openid.net/xmlns/1.0">http://hacker.klever.net/</Delegate>
</Service>
</XRD>
</XRDS> Yes the CID in the final XRD is @xrid*hacker. People entering there own CIDs presents interesting questions. The discussion is towards the end of the "Thread-Safe - XRI & openID 2.0 questions" thread. I didn't want to confuse the issue with edge cases. From an RP point of view every XRD MUST have a CID that passes validation, otherwise they shouldn't be logging in. Yes there are other use cases where not having a CID makes sense (Gabe). However I would like to discourage the use of CIDs that are not validate-able by the resolver. =jbradley On 22-Feb-08, at 8:34 AM, Markus Sabadello wrote: Hmm cool post.. First text I read about actual applications of 2.0 resolution. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]