I think enough people wants to do artifact binding, including Google. All the mobile carriers in Japan wants to do it as well. So what is stopping us?
It is probably the "process". It is way top heavy. Why did they need to create OAuth on their own IPR regime? Because, OpenID did not move fast enough. Can we move fast enough? No. With the current process, we just cannot. It probably is more practical to start the discussion in Kantara, OASIS, or IETF. OIDF is the most heavyweight and slowest of all. We will start seeing cavitation phenomenon on OpenID soon if we do not change our course quickly. Nat On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:34 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
