So let's change the process! You're a board member, we're all members
of the Foundation, let's do it instead of complain about it. :)
I think the larger reason is no one has stepped up like they would
need to do as an editor to the next version of OpenID Authentication
given how large of a time commitment that it is. There are plenty of
things in the next version that we should remove, others things we
should add, exploratory work around things like discovery and how
OpenID interacts with OAuth. While I would like to do it, I know that
I don't have the time by myself.
--David
On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
