OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: OpenID 2.1

Hey John,
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this and I look forward to talking to all of you pretty soon.  Some thoughts inline...


On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM, John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com> wrote:
Thoughts on openID 2.1 and XRI as an extension.

The more or less common view of extensions is that they are features exposed by the OP in the XRDS document.

I'll agree that is how extensions have been written today, but I don't see why it has to be that way.  Every existing extension is already an interaction between the RP and OP with many being initiated by the RP.  While not extensions, services like BotBouncer are clearly focused toward RPs.
The authentication methods themselves can be thought of as extensions.

SAML-SSO and others can be described in the XRDS and used to provide a binding between the user and the meta-data resource.

In the case where:
1. A OP supports making an assertion about the claimed_ID as  a XRI or as a http: URI.
2. The RP wants to choose on the format it presents the openid.claimed_id and openid.identity to the OP in.

I can see that described as an extension in the XRDS.

I suppose, though I have the feeling something like this would still be quite a ways off.
The extension notion is more problematic when it comes to the Discovery.

Should openID have optional discovery mechanisms?

We currently have a number of options in 2.0
1. Rel links in a http document (Non XRDS)
2. A X-XRDS-Location header with a http(s) URI indicating the location of the XRDS
3. A HTML head element containing a <meta> element with a http-equiv attribute equals to X-XRDS-Location where the content is a  http(s) URI indicating the location of the XRDS
4. A HTTP GET request containing an Accept header specifying content type application/xrds+xml. Returning the XRDS.
5. XRI resolution.

Yes, many different options with some being adopted and others not.  I think we must look at how these different methods are being adopted.
At one point there was the notion of a Yadis ID and that ID http(s) or XRI had some number of authentication services associated with it.

I think there are two questions to be asked.
1.  What is the discovery protocol or protocols  that openID RPs will support
2.  What identifiers will openID the authentication protocol support.

Currently other than for discovery openID 2.0 largely treats identifiers as opaque strings.

The XRI notion of polymorphism is currently achieved by using the CID as the claimed_id however most clients strip the fragment from the claimed_id and use it for display.

The 2.0 spec also specifies that the claimed_id and the identity sent to the OP must be the same unless there is a LocalID in the XRDS.

This prevents OPs from displaying the iName the user input at the RP.

Some of the advantages of XRI just are not represented in the basic concepts of the 2.0 spec.

Agreed, OpenID Auth 2.0 today doesn't do a good job supporting all of the features offered by XRIs.  I unfortunately don't see this radically changing in the core specification until XRI shows that it is really going to be adopted for consumer identity online.
The only way to leave room for XRI or other identifier formats in the core spec would be to make all of the identifiers abstract,  allow for the claimed_id to be different from the current login identifier etc.

If that abstraction is not part of the core spec then we are better off giving up on polymorphism for openID RPs and treat all XRI as HXRI for the purpose of openID and make the new version of XRDS-Simple discovery end HXRI proxy discovery equivalent for openID.
OpenID treats them all as https: URI and call it a day.

That might be the best approach.  In anycase, breaking XRI support out into an extension allows it to be revised and evolved at a different rate than the core specification.
I will throw out the heretical idea that Discovery and authentication aught to be separate but modular specs.

We've talked about this in the past though I see it dramatically increasing the scope of OpenID Auth 2.1 and making it more difficult for 95% of implementors to follow the specification.
The RP of the future supports a Discovery Protocol for identifiers.
That discovery protocol supports some number of authentication mechanisms.
The RP selects the best authentication protocol for it purposes.

I like that sort of model, though don't think we're quite there yet. :)
XRI is in the identifier and meta-data discovery for "non-information resources" business.

XRI identifiers have abstraction qualities not easily achieved with http: identifiers.

The question is will there be a higher level identity abstraction for RPs that deals with oAuth, openID, SAML-SSO, LID, info-card?

Things to think about for tomorrows call.

John Bradley

PS Johannes can be right about some things:)


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]