Nat,
You can do identity less openID checkid_imediate requests to invoke
extensions like AX.
That doesn't let you piggyback AX on a association request though.
I am sympathetic to your problem of wanting an artifact binding for
openID.
The reality is that we need to create a artifact binding in 2.1 rather
than try and slip it through some loose wording in the 2.0 spec.
OpenID 2.0 doesn't support artifact binding.
If it did then that would have helped me with the LoA 2 justification.
Artifact binding will add complexity and not everyone will support it.
Some may ask if we add artifact binding, signatures and encryption are
we not reinventing SAML Web SSO, or something of equal complexity?
I am not against doing it if that is the chosen direction. However I
would like to see a full and open discussion on it.
John B.
On 13-Aug-09, at 8:03 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:03:12 +0900
From: Nat Sakimura <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: So, what is an OpenID Extension?
To: James Henstridge <[email protected]>
Cc: OpenID Specs Mailing List <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hmmm. So, there is no way we can do direct communication in an
extension? 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
1) mobile clients will not choke.
2) is going to be more secure.
In AX, there is a notion of update_url, but is that also used only for
indirect communication through browser?
I feel that it is extremely limiting if we cannot do the server to
server
communication.
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.
=nat
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
