One of the things you need for LoA 2 is to prevent eavesdropping.
The choices are encrypt the response to the RP or use direct
communication with TLS (probably mutual) if the RP is going to make a
direct request to the OP.
Using an artifact binding has advantages and disadvantages. Using it
to get around the 2K URI limit in IE would put any RP not supporting
it at a disadvantage.
It might be acceptable if the RP could indicate its support for
artifact binding in the request and allow the OP to use artifact
instead of post.
With mobile devices becoming more common I can see people preferring
an artifact binding over the existing ones.
It is a real change to the protocol and will add complexity supporting
another binding.
One short term fix that Andrew Arnott implemented in DotNetOpenAuth is
a smart detection of OP's support for AX vs SREG and preferring SREG
if it is supported. Most people are only using AX for the SREG
attributes anyway.
I agree that the AX attribute URI need to get sorted out anyway. We
could look at making them shorter when we mint new standard ones.
John B.
On 18-Aug-09, at 6:02 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for the delayed response, I'm still catching up on mail after
being on vacation last week.
Breno - How would artifact binding help OpenID attain Loa2? I'm
unclear as to how that would make a difference.
The Yahoo OP was recently updated to return responses that are
larger than 2KB using POST, and this has caused many users to see
the ugly browser warning because most RPs don't support HTTPS.
Displaying the ugly browser warning is really unacceptable, so we'll
probably update the Yahoo OP to only use POST only for HTTPS
return_to URLs.
The excessively large responses are mostly due to AX being
excessively verbose. It would be really nice if we could revise AX
to be a lot more compact. Perhaps if we had a standardized AX
schema, we'd be able to shorten the message size.
Allen
Breno de Medeiros wrote:
Since Google was mentioned here as wanting artifact, let me make the
record clear to say that I spoke about artifact binding on my
personal
capacity.
My very own personal view is that an artifact profile would be easy
to
spec out (the check_authentication or stateless mode is already the
artifact flow without the additional benefits of artifact) and would
make OpenID more robust. Currently long URLs require POST which only
gives you so much mileage. POST is ugly if the RP has a non-HTTPS
endpoint, with scary user confirmation dialogs.
Also, I did not wish to express any personal opinion on whether
OpenID
should seek Loa2, just to note that artifact is the easiest route
there.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Nat Sakimura<[email protected]>
wrote:
John,
You changed the topic of this thread.
This thread was about artifact binding, not about Government LoA.
That's another thread :-)
Yes, Artifact helps LoA, but it is not only that.
It helps the mobile space immensely.
=nat
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]>
wrote:
Chris
I think we are agreeing. OpenID needs to play to it's strengths.
Chasing shiny things is tempting.
We need to carefully consider the impact of changes.
That is not to say that openID shouldn't evolve.
There are always tradeoffs.
Remember that a GSA LoA 2 or 3 profile is focused on the Gov
accepting the
assertions for specific uses.
Other people are free to make there own determinations for other
use
cases.
I am interested in finding out if IdP really want to be certified
at LoA 2
with all of the extra identity
proofing, liability and other things that go with that.
A LoA 2 certification for a IdP involves a lot more than just
tweaking
some protocol peaces.
Are there OPs that want that?
John B.
On 13-Aug-09, at 9:11 AM, Chris Messina wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]>
wrote:
Some may ask if we add artifact binding, signatures and
encryption are we
not reinventing SAML Web SSO, or something of equal complexity?
I would like to know more about this, but my instinct is always
to say
"NO" for as long as possible when any new feature will a) introduce
complexity and b) stifle or impair potential adoption.
That we've come as far as we have is a feat; maintaining that
momentum is
critical — and that means making good on the promise of what
OpenID offers
*today* — and only extending it with real world examples where
people are
implementing kludges (en masse) to serve a common need.
Chris
--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate
Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
