The openID link relation is to your openID service eg Google not your claimed_id.
The <Subject> of the XRD is the name of the thing you are looking up. If you input [email protected] into a LRDD resolution process and use webfinger for normalization you will get a XRD. That XRD may have the <Subject> http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej That would be up to you or your OP to decide. I think Santosh wants to allow you the option of having acct:[email protected] as the subject of the XRD. This leads to questions about what the core protocol is validating. Is it the claimed_id or the openid.identity. Do we need both, is delegation supported, and if so how, etc. I think the WG needs to consider what impact having non http/https URI as claimed ID has on the overall protocol. I don't want to restrict the WG from considering the issue via the charter. John B. On 2010-05-13, at 10:51 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote: > Santosh, > > The subject of [email protected] is what? > If that can be assumed to be acct:[email protected], then when WebFinger > is employed, the Subject of the XRD document is acct:[email protected]. > That’s not what I want. > > Inside the XRD document should be a link like this: > <Link rel="openid" href="http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej"/> > > The link relation value is still subject to debate, but that’s what I think > we should use to identify the claimed ID. > > Paul > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Santosh Rajan > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:50 AM > To: John Bradley > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OpenID V.Next - Some Views to Consider > > I will vote for the Subject of the XRD to be the claimed_id. It only seems > natural, and clean to do that. > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:17 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > > So if openID supports LRDD then normalization rules for Acct: and other URI > schemes could be specified so that they to can be resolved to a XRD. > > The question will be for the core protocol what to use as the claimed_id. > > There are three schools of thought. > 1 The normalized input identifier > 2 The Subject of the XRD > 3 The claimed_id that the OP returns. > > There are arguments to be made for all three. > > I expect this to be addressed in the WG. > > > On 2010-05-12, at 12:34 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote: > > Starting a new thread here based on an earlier one quoted below. > > Let us reconsider the definition of OpenID for V.next. I would like to see a > new definition for OpenID. > > "An OpenID is Any Valid URI that can be resolved to it's Descriptor". > > Now let me give a little explanation on the above, with a few points. > 1) Existing OpenID's version 1 and 2 are compatible with the above > definition. (http(s) OpenId's version 1 and 2 do resolve to their > descriptor's) > 2) Email like identifiers are compatible with the above definition with the > webfinger protocol, and ofcourse resolve to their descriptor's. > > Now any other future protocol that can make its URI resolvable to a > descriptor, will also be a Valid OpenID. Let me give an example. > > According to the above definition we can make "tag URI's" valid OpenID's, as > long as we have a protocol to resolve this URI to its's descriptor. > > tag:[email protected],2007-11-02:Tag_URI > > Now as far as I am concerned tag URI's are even better as OpenID's, because > they are unique over space and time. > > Webfinger support for tag URI's anyone? :-) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Paul E. Jones <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:11 AM > Subject: RE: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group > To: Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> > Cc: Mike Jones <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected] > > > Santosh, > > Why not store the claimed ID in the webfinger (LRDD) XRD document? > > The objective, I would hope, is to make it easier to log into web sites. > Email-style identifiers make that easier, but the system does not have to be > built around those. > > So, I sign up with a service provider. Let’s just use my own site as an > example. I am assigned an email address [email protected]. Behind the > scenes, I am also assign an OpenID ID http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej. > Now, when I visit a web site, I can type ‘[email protected]’ and the site > can perform a webfinger query to discovery by OpenID ID. We would define a > link relation (something we’ve talked about before) that represents openid. > It could be http://openid.net/identity or it could be simply “openid” (since > link relations need not be URIs). Looking at the href of the “openid” link > relation, one would find my OpenID URIhttp://openid.packetizer.com/paulej. > > Now, should I wish to have a different email provider than my openid > provider, that’s fine: I could change the record associated with the openid > link relation to contain a different OpenID identifier. Alternatively, I > could just get an account at someopenidop.com and they might assign an e-mail > style address like [email protected] and perform the Webfinger > resolution behind the scenes. > > Anyway, issue this request: > $ curl http://www.packetizer.com/lrdd/?uri=acct:[email protected] > > You’ll see the link relation for my claimed ID: > <Link rel="http://openid.net/identity"; > href="http://openid.packetizer.com/paulej"/> > > It does introduce another protocol, but I think these play nicely together. > The real identity would remain the URL that OpenID uses today. The email > identifier would just be an alias for it. > > Paul > > From: Santosh Rajan [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:39 PM > To: Paul E. Jones > Cc: Mike Jones; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Draft charter for v.Next Attributes working group > > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Paul E. Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Adding support for email-style addresses is something I like, but something > that can be provided via webfinger. Thus, no change to the base protocol. > > > I beg to disagree here. I think the base protocol needs to address the issue > of email like identifiers. I would like to see that email like identifiers > are valid OpenID claimed id's. > So something like acct:example @ example.com should be a valid OpenID > claimed_id. > > Also this discussion should not be in this thread (about attributes) and > maybe someone could start a new thread on this subject. > > Thanks > Santosh > > > http://hi.im/santosh > > > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > > > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > >
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
