Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
This has been discussed to death and really should be a FAQ by now, but it's not written up, so I'll add a few points: -- we should discuss this as a generic email to URL mapping problem, and ignore what is done with that URL then. yes, it could be used as an OpenID -- that said, with directed identity in OpenID 2.0, a user just needs to type in "yahoo.com", or press the pretty yahoo button. No typing. -- For email-to-URL, NAPTR by itself is a non-starter. Technically it may be the correct way, but average people don't control their DNS. Hell, networksolutions doesn't even let you add SRV or TXT records. -- A good solution to email-to-URL mapping will likely involve an XRDS-Simple-style two-pronged discovery lookup path. Whereas XRDS-Simple says "try Accept header, then parse the tag", a good email-to-URL lookup "protocol" (best practice?) might be to try NAPTR first, then fall back to this: http://brad.livejournal.com/2357444.html - Brad 2008/4/1 Paul E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Folks, > > > > I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as > the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: > > http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php > > > > I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically > usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some > very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it > presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a > base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. > Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the > ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. > > > > While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can > certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at > Yahoo contained the following entry: > > > > yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" > "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; > > > > This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform > a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this > does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does > it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this > form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. > > > > If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the > reason? > > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and you've got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard but finding a company willing to put something out there. As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI --> HTTP URI conversation. Basically if you had a generic way of moving from mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the user), any URI can be used for OpenID. But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? :) EHL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason? Thanks, Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Eran, You're entirely correct that this is not an OpenID issue, per se. In fact, not a single word of text would need to be changed in the current v2 specs, as far as I'm concerned. But, I do think that it will take some of the core OpenID team members to put a stake in the ground and say, "this is the convention that we'll follow." What needs to happen then is perhaps an extension written that explains how to convert an email address to a URL. Using NAPTR records seems like the simplest way to do it to me, but I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:43 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and you've got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard but finding a company willing to put something out there. As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI --> HTTP URI conversation. Basically if you had a generic way of moving from mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the user), any URI can be used for OpenID. But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? J EHL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason? Thanks, Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
On 1-Apr-08, at 7:37 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote: -- that said, with directed identity in OpenID 2.0, a user just needs to type in "yahoo.com", or press the pretty yahoo button. No typing. I think this is why we don't need to use emails. People are very familiar with typing in a URL in the address bar. The experience of entering an URL and then being on that page is also really familiar. This is of course what happens when you type the OP into the OpenID prompt. Sorry for not being the least bit supportive of the email as identifier idea -- there are just so many things that are bad about it and the good reason (an identifier they already know) is provided per above with the advantage of giving an expected experience. I agree with Brad that we need to write a FAQ on this. -- Dick___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Take a look at http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/01/addressing-open.html - especially the list of other solutions proposed before me, as well as Brad's proposal. The thing is, you need the @gmail, @hotmail, @msn, @yahoo, @aol to support this DNS, and they *are* the email providers. EHL From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:42 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Eran, You're entirely correct that this is not an OpenID issue, per se. In fact, not a single word of text would need to be changed in the current v2 specs, as far as I'm concerned. But, I do think that it will take some of the core OpenID team members to put a stake in the ground and say, "this is the convention that we'll follow." What needs to happen then is perhaps an extension written that explains how to convert an email address to a URL. Using NAPTR records seems like the simplest way to do it to me, but I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:43 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and you've got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard but finding a company willing to put something out there. As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI --> HTTP URI conversation. Basically if you had a generic way of moving from mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the user), any URI can be used for OpenID. But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? :) EHL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason? Thanks, Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
On 02/04/2008, Paul E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the > OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: > > http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php > > I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable > by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very > complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it > presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a > base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. > Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the > ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. > > While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly > serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo > contained the following entry: > > yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" > "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; > > This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a > simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this > does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does > it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this > form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If your aim is to let people use an email address as an identifier, there are a few questions to answer: 1. when a user enters an email address into an RP, how is the claimed ID derived from that input? 2. given such an input, how does the RP go about discovering the OpenID endpoint URL and local ID for that identity? With answers to these two questions, the remainder of the protocol should function as is. I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're suggesting that this DNS lookup be done as part of (1). This seems like it would cause confusion if the user's ISP changed their DNS, since the user would see their email address as being the real identifier: not the URL that it maps to. A solution that matches closer with what the user expects would be to map "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to a claimed ID of "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For (2), I'd suggest a solution that maps the email address to either directly to an OpenID endpoint (using the claimed ID as local ID), or to an XRDS file. A DNS based solution seems fine here (either your NAPTR idea, or TXT records as suggested in replies to your post). James. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Brad, Your point about DNS limitations is valid. Then again, anybody who will be offering the open identity server is likely going to have control over their DNS. Still, I’m not opposed to alternatives. But, since you brought up the fact that one can enter yahoo.com and get redirected, I checked and, indeed, several OpenID sites already accept the e-mail ID as a form of identification—and I can get redirected to either Yahoo or MyOpenID.com. So, do some of the libraries already check for e-mail address forms? It seems that perhaps they do! Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Fitzpatrick Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:38 PM To: Paul E. Jones Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier This has been discussed to death and really should be a FAQ by now, but it's not written up, so I'll add a few points: -- we should discuss this as a generic email to URL mapping problem, and ignore what is done with that URL then. yes, it could be used as an OpenID -- that said, with directed identity in OpenID 2.0, a user just needs to type in "yahoo.com", or press the pretty yahoo button. No typing. -- For email-to-URL, NAPTR by itself is a non-starter. Technically it may be the correct way, but average people don't control their DNS. Hell, networksolutions doesn't even let you add SRV or TXT records. -- A good solution to email-to-URL mapping will likely involve an XRDS-Simple-style two-pronged discovery lookup path. Whereas XRDS-Simple says "try Accept header, then parse the tag", a good email-to-URL lookup "protocol" (best practice?) might be to try NAPTR first, then fall back to this: http://brad.livejournal.com/2357444.html - Brad 2008/4/1 Paul E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason? Thanks, Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Dick, On this point, I really have to disagree. Even I rarely enter a URL into a web browser. Why bother when I know the web browser will figure it out for me. I don't want to type http:// or https:// :-) More importantly, you and I are different than the average users. I've watched people struggle with getting addresses properly entered. I've watched people put "www" in front of every name entered into a web browser, even when the site might be something else. I've watched users enter \\ rather than //. I've even no slash at all. So, what I think is important is that users have something simple and consistent. As I noted to my message to Brad just a moment ago, it appears that some sites will accept the e-mail address form and then figure out where to direct the user. I was pleasantly surprised. Given that at least some of the sites out there now do operate this way, I suspect it might just be a matter of time before all of them do. But, I think it's important that the user experience is consistent, as you say. If email IDs are going to be supported by some, through ought to be supported by all - even if they do nothing but figure out which OP to direct the browser to. Paul From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:45 PM To: Brad Fitzpatrick Cc: Paul E. Jones; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier On 1-Apr-08, at 7:37 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote: -- that said, with directed identity in OpenID 2.0, a user just needs to type in "yahoo.com", or press the pretty yahoo button. No typing. I think this is why we don't need to use emails. People are very familiar with typing in a URL in the address bar. The experience of entering an URL and then being on that page is also really familiar. This is of course what happens when you type the OP into the OpenID prompt. Sorry for not being the least bit supportive of the email as identifier idea -- there are just so many things that are bad about it and the good reason (an identifier they already know) is provided per above with the advantage of giving an expected experience. I agree with Brad that we need to write a FAQ on this. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Eran, I'm not suggesting that the address must be a real e-mail address. I'm suggesting that the ID has that form. It's easier for users than entering https://me.yahoo.com/userid. If it happens to also be one's real e-mail address, fine. That would be a plus for me, but I don't see that as a requirement. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:17 AM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Take a look at http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/01/addressing-open.html - especially the list of other solutions proposed before me, as well as Brad's proposal. The thing is, you need the @gmail, @hotmail, @msn, @yahoo, @aol to support this DNS, and they *are* the email providers. EHL From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:42 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Eran, You're entirely correct that this is not an OpenID issue, per se. In fact, not a single word of text would need to be changed in the current v2 specs, as far as I'm concerned. But, I do think that it will take some of the core OpenID team members to put a stake in the ground and say, "this is the convention that we'll follow." What needs to happen then is perhaps an extension written that explains how to convert an email address to a URL. Using NAPTR records seems like the simplest way to do it to me, but I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:43 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and you've got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard but finding a company willing to put something out there. As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI --> HTTP URI conversation. Basically if you had a generic way of moving from mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the user), any URI can be used for OpenID. But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? J EHL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it me
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Entering yahoo.com is even easier! On 1-Apr-08, at 10:05 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: Eran, I’m not suggesting that the address must be a real e-mail address. I’m suggesting that the ID has that form. It’s easier for users than enteringhttps://me.yahoo.com/userid. If it happens to also be one’s real e-mail address, fine. That would be a plus for me, but I don’t see that as a requirement. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:17 AM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Take a look at http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/01/addressing-open.html - especially the list of other solutions proposed before me, as well as Brad’s proposal. The thing is, you need the @gmail, @hotmail, @msn, @yahoo, @aol to support this DNS, and they *are* the email providers. EHL From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:42 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Eran, You’re entirely correct that this is not an OpenID issue, per se. In fact, not a single word of text would need to be changed in the current v2 specs, as far as I’m concerned. But, I do think that it will take some of the core OpenID team members to put a stake in the ground and say, “this is the convention that we’ll follow.” What needs to happen then is perhaps an extension written that explains how to convert an email address to a URL. Using NAPTR records seems like the simplest way to do it to me, but I’m open to suggestions. Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:43 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and you’ve got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard but finding a company willing to put something out there. As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI --> HTTP URI conversation. Basically if you had a generic way of moving frommailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the user), any URI can be used for OpenID. But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? J EHL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier Folks, I’ve seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo’s OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one’s ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/ \1!i" This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the “real” URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or X
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
James, >>yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i"; . > > > 1. when a user enters an email address into an RP, how is the claimed > ID derived from that input? Using the NAPTR record as shown above, if I user [EMAIL PROTECTED], the RP could perform a translation to https://me.yahoo.com/paulej > 2. given such an input, how does the RP go about discovering the > OpenID endpoint URL and local ID for that identity? > > With answers to these two questions, the remainder of the protocol > should function as is. At this point, the RP would have the "real" OpenID ID for the user. Everything else would proceed as normal. > I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're suggesting that > this DNS lookup be done as part of (1). This seems like it would > cause confusion if the user's ISP changed their DNS, since the user > would see their email address as being the real identifier: not the > URL that it maps to. Yes, that could be an issue. However, I would expect users would use an identifier from a OP that *looks like* an e-mail address. They would not necessarily use their real address. For example, I don't use Yahoo mail, but I would enter [EMAIL PROTECTED] as my OpenID ID. > A solution that matches closer with what the user expects would be to > map "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to a claimed ID of "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The average user is not going to know what "mailto:"; is. > For (2), I'd suggest a solution that maps the email address to either > directly to an OpenID endpoint (using the claimed ID as local ID), or > to an XRDS file. A DNS based solution seems fine here (either your > NAPTR idea, or TXT records as suggested in replies to your post). NAPTR queries and transformations are straight-forward. It's just a regular expression transformation from something that looks like an e-mail address to the real OpenID ID. But, again, I don't really care how it works. But, for the benefit of those who are not so technically capable, I believe it's got to be super, super trivial. NAPTR would work extremely well, I think, and would be fast. Any OpenID OP could provide an e-mail style identifier and it would certainly be a motivator for anybody providing e-mail service to also OpenID enable their subscriber's e-mail addresses. Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
On 1-Apr-08, at 10:02 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: Dick, On this point, I really have to disagree. Even I rarely enter a URL into a web browser. Why bother when I know the web browser will figure it out for me. I don’t want to type http:// or https:// :-) I don't want to type the protocol either. I should have been more clear, the user types yahoo.com or aol.com into the prompt. Since this is NOT the identifier (which is a useful aspect of this method) -- the risks of NOT using https are much lower. -- Dick___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
On 02/04/2008, Paul E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Your point about DNS limitations is valid. Then again, anybody who will be
> offering the open identity server is likely going to have control over their
> DNS. Still, I'm not opposed to alternatives.
>
> But, since you brought up the fact that one can enter yahoo.com and get
> redirected, I checked and, indeed, several OpenID sites already accept the
> e-mail ID as a form of identification—and I can get redirected to either
> Yahoo or MyOpenID.com. So, do some of the libraries already check for
> e-mail address forms? It seems that perhaps they do!
What you are seeing is probably not what you expect:
>>> from openid.consumer.discover import discover
>>> claimed_id, services = discover('[EMAIL PROTECTED]')
>>> for service in services:
... print 'Local ID:', service.getLocalID()
... print 'Server URL:', service.server_url
...
Local ID: None
Server URL: https://open.login.yahooapis.com/openid/op/auth
>>> claimed_id
'http://www.yahoo.com/'
What is happening is that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is being treated as
"http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/". As "http://yahoo.com"; results in an
identifier select endpoint that will work for any Yahoo user.
Note that the HTTP username isn't being used for anything here, and
you'll get the same result by just entering "yahoo.com". I wonder if
the Yahoo guys had considered this, or if it is just a happy accident?
James.
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Dick, I'll give you that one: that's certainly easier. But, does not cause some confusion? After all, one's identity is not yahoo.com, but that is the identity provider. Perhaps the prompts around the Internet ought to Say "OpenID Provider:" instead? :-) Presently, this variant works form some providers, but not most. I assume it's due to the fact they're not fully compliant with the spec yet? Or, is there some confusion as to how this ought to work? Paul From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:09 AM To: Paul E. Jones Cc: 'Eran Hammer-Lahav'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier Entering yahoo.com is even easier! On 1-Apr-08, at 10:05 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: Eran, I'm not suggesting that the address must be a real e-mail address. I'm suggesting that the ID has that form. It's easier for users than enteringhttps://me.yahoo.com/userid. If it happens to also be one's real e-mail address, fine. That would be a plus for me, but I don't see that as a requirement. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:17 AM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Take a look at http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2008/01/addressing-open.html - especially the list of other solutions proposed before me, as well as Brad's proposal. The thing is, you need the @gmail, @hotmail, @msn, @yahoo, @aol to support this DNS, and they *are* the email providers. EHL From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:42 PM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier Eran, You're entirely correct that this is not an OpenID issue, per se. In fact, not a single word of text would need to be changed in the current v2 specs, as far as I'm concerned. But, I do think that it will take some of the core OpenID team members to put a stake in the ground and say, "this is the convention that we'll follow." What needs to happen then is perhaps an extension written that explains how to convert an email address to a URL. Using NAPTR records seems like the simplest way to do it to me, but I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822. Paul From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:43 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier The beauty of the current OpenID spec is that anyone can implement it and go live. However, with email identifiers you need email providers to support it. If Google, Yahoo, AOL, or Microsoft announced they are adding such a feature, I am sure the others are likely to follow. Get 2 of these 4 and you've got something going. But the biggest issue is not picking a standard but finding a company willing to put something out there. As for the technical solutions, there are many from DNS to XRDS to a simple template agreed by all. Brad Fitzpatrick argued at FooCamp that this is not an OpenID issue, but a non-HTTP URI --> HTTP URI conversation. Basically if you had a generic way of moving frommailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to http://example.com/url/user (or any other URI with HTTP, the domain, and the user), any URI can be used for OpenID. But at the end this is about someone of a major email provider saying they are interested and put out something people can use. After that I expect the snowball to roll. So, do you know anyone? J EHL From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:31 PM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presen
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
On 02/04/2008, Paul E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A solution that matches closer with what the user expects would be to > > map "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to a claimed ID of "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > > The average user is not going to know what "mailto:"; is. The mailto: transition would be something done internally by the RP. The RP could (and probably should) display email addresses without the "mailto:"; prefix to the user. This is similar to the way RPs store persistent XRIs as the user's claimed ID but are encouraged to display the reassignable XRI. > > For (2), I'd suggest a solution that maps the email address to either > > directly to an OpenID endpoint (using the claimed ID as local ID), or > > to an XRDS file. A DNS based solution seems fine here (either your > > NAPTR idea, or TXT records as suggested in replies to your post). > > > NAPTR queries and transformations are straight-forward. It's just a regular > expression transformation from something that looks like an e-mail address > to the real OpenID ID. > > But, again, I don't really care how it works. But, for the benefit of those > who are not so technically capable, I believe it's got to be super, super > trivial. NAPTR would work extremely well, I think, and would be fast. Any > OpenID OP could provide an e-mail style identifier and it would certainly be > a motivator for anybody providing e-mail service to also OpenID enable their > subscriber's e-mail addresses. I don't think there is a need to introduce an HTTP identity URL here. If you're going to use an email address as an identity, then use an email address as an identity. James. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
On 1-Apr-08, at 11:15 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: Dick, I’ll give you that one: that’s certainly easier. But, does not cause some confusion? After all, one’s identity is not yahoo.com, but that is the identity provider. Perhaps the prompts around the Internet ought to Say “OpenID Provider:” instead? :-) :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that awareness is higher, having it built into the browser is feasible. I of course am biased given the work we have done with Sxipper http://sxipper.com :) Presently, this variant works form some providers, but not most. I assume it’s due to the fact they’re not fully compliant with the spec yet? Or, is there some confusion as to how this ought to work? I don't think an OP is not OpenID 2.0 compliant if it does not take the OP as an identifier -- but I would have to reread to the spec to make sure. -- Dick ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Does anyone have the time to write an email -> xrds discovery spec so we can formally ignore it? And so people can argue with their dns providers instead of on list? http:// Joseph Holsten .com On 02008:04:01, at 9:30CDT, Paul E. Jones wrote: Folks, I’ve seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo’s OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one’s ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https:// me.yahoo.com/\1!i" This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the “real” URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the “email address” has to be a real e-mail address. But, this form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason? Thanks, Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Dick Hardt wrote: > > On 1-Apr-08, at 11:15 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: >> Dick, >> >> I’ll give you that one: that’s certainly easier. But, does not cause >> some confusion? After all, one’s identity is not yahoo.com, but that >> is the identity provider. Perhaps the prompts around the Internet >> ought to Say “OpenID Provider:” instead? :-) > > :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be > done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy > for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user > click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then > any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not > expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that > awareness is higher, having it built into the browser is feasible. I > of course am biased given the work we have done with Sxipper > http://sxipper.com :) For the majority of users, this is probably the most likely path of introduction to OpenID. Note that it's not just about allowing the user to do something with one click, but also about being proactive and informing the user that they can login to a site with an identity they already have. This can be as simple as telling the browser "identity agent" (e.g. sxipper) which email addresses the user has and letting the identity agent figure out which OpenID's the user has that they don't even know about. I think relying party sites that support OpenID could do more to make it clear on their home pages that they support OpenID (as often it's hidden behind another click). This could be as simple as some tags that advertise support for OpenID. Maybe a to the XRDS doc describing the services of the site. Then the identity agent can discover the relying party OpenID return_to endpoint and log the user in directly. Can be used to solve a phishing problem and makes the experience easy for the user. Some related thoughts http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/clients-to-rescue.html http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/passive-identity-meta-system-markup.html Thanks, George ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Joseph, That argument was given to me yesterday, but I don't think you really need to worry with your DNS provider unless you're also trying to operate your own OP. Suppose, for example, you have an ID assigned by myopenid.com. I don't know what URI format they'll use, but let's say it is https://myopenid.com/joseph. Or, perhaps it's https://joseph.myopenid.com. Whatever the format, there is always a user component to it. So, it would be quite simply to take the user component and put it into an e-mail ID style like [EMAIL PROTECTED] This does not necessarily mean you have an e-mail address, but it could be an e-mail address. The conversion from that form to a URI form is easily achieved via NAPTR records similar to the one I show below. So, before any XRDS query is performed, the RP would see if the ID provided is an e-mail-style ID. If so, query for the NAPTR record and then perform the conversion from the e-mail-style to a URL. From there, it all works the same. It's just a "make it simple" enhancement that requires no changes to the core Open ID specs. Paul From: Joseph Holsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:52 AM To: Paul E. Jones Cc: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier Does anyone have the time to write an email -> xrds discovery spec so we can formally ignore it? And so people can argue with their dns providers instead of on list? http:// Joseph Holsten .com On 02008:04:01, at 9:30CDT, Paul E. Jones wrote: Folks, I've seen discussion here and there on the use of the e-mail address as the OpenID identifier. Perhaps this one says it best: http://www.majordojo.com/2007/02/what-openid-needs.php I share many of same opinions. If OpenID is going to be practically usable by the average person, we cannot require the person to remember some very complex identifier. When I signed up for Yahoo's OpenID service, it presented me with a hideously ugly URL that looked similar to a base64-encoded string. I could not begin to tell you what it was. Fortunately, Yahoo allowed me to define my own, friendlier name. Still, the ID is not one that the average user will remember or get right. While the e-mail address does not have to be the one's ID, it can certainly serve as an alias. Suppose, for example, that the DNS records at Yahoo contained the following entry: yahoo.com. IN NAPTR 100 10 "U" "OpenID2" "^(.+)@(.*)$!https://me.yahoo.com/\1!i <https://me.yahoo.com/1!i> " This would allow a Relaying Party to accept an e-mail address and perform a simple transformation to get the "real" URL identifier. Of course, this does not mean that the existing URL or XRI identifiers are invalid, nor does it mean that the "email address" has to be a real e-mail address. But, this form would certainly be far simpler for most people to deal use. If something like this has been discussed and rejected, what was the reason? Thanks, Paul ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Paul E. Jones wrote: > > Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it requires > the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) simpler > notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that should > work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR record. I > could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com DNS server that > would allow me to use my email address, but point at my preferred OpenID > provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is used does > not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: it could be, but more > importantly, it just follows that familiar format documented in RFC 822. > Funnily enough, I've always percieved the fact that syntactically-valid but non-existant email addresses are being used as identifiers as a problem rather than a benefit: * It creates confusion for users when something looks like an email address but it doesn't behave as one. I've seen this sort of confusion with Jabber servers, where users get confused that their Jabber ID and email address are not the same, especially when Jabber clients say "For example, [EMAIL PROTECTED]" under the Jabber ID field. * If not all email-shaped OpenID identifiers are actually working mailboxes, it's likely to lead to a distressing user experience where the user is first asked to enter their OpenID identifier -- that is, their email address -- and then they're asked to enter and verify their email address. At this point, I expect users to at best say "Stupid computer! Remember what I've told you!" and at worst get confused and think that the OpenID identifier they entered was not correct. * As has often been raised in both the OpenID-with-email and in the Jabber circles, many people are reluctant to give up their email addresses to the public eye for fear of spam. Note that Yahoo.com will, by default, use a big opaque string as an identifier rather than the user's Yahoo! account name for this very reason. ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
Paul E. Jones wrote: > > > I’ll give you that one: that’s certainly easier. But, does not cause > some confusion? After all, one’s identity is not yahoo.com, but that is > the identity provider. Perhaps the prompts around the Internet ought to > Say “OpenID Provider:” instead? :-) > I propose that the caption be "Whatever your OpenID provider told you to enter: ". (I joke, of course. Mostly.) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
What about having an ENUM e164.org record holding not only the IP of an SIP-Broker, but the OpenID ID. Whatever format and syntax it might have. The appropriate IETF RFC 2916 "E.164 number and DNS" could provide not only mangling with eMail addresses but also with telephone numbers: this will provide much more fun ! But seriously: mixing the POTS numbering system with the now good old internet identification could be a in place solution, IMHO. 2ct .bax Am 07.04.2008 um 21:21 schrieb McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT): > This would require defining an OpenID SRV record in DNS. Would make > sense for someone to get this formally defined as part of IETF. Could > kinda be done in the same way that Boeing is moving forward definition > of XRI in LDAP.. > > -Original Message- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0100 > From: Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier > To: specs@openid.net > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Paul E. Jones wrote: >> >> Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it >> requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) >> simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and >> that > >> should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR >> record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com >> DNS > >> server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my >> preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: >> it > >> could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format > documented in RFC 822. >> > > Funnily enough, I've always percieved the fact that syntactically- > valid > but non-existant email addresses are being used as identifiers as a > problem rather than a benefit: > > * It creates confusion for users when something looks like an email > address but it doesn't behave as one. I've seen this sort of confusion > with Jabber servers, where users get confused that their Jabber ID and > email address are not the same, especially when Jabber clients say > "For > example, [EMAIL PROTECTED]" under the Jabber ID field. > > * If not all email-shaped OpenID identifiers are actually working > mailboxes, it's likely to lead to a distressing user experience where > the user is first asked to enter their OpenID identifier -- that is, > their email address -- and then they're asked to enter and verify > their > email address. At this point, I expect users to at best say "Stupid > computer! Remember what I've told you!" and at worst get confused and > think that the OpenID identifier they entered was not correct. > > * As has often been raised in both the OpenID-with-email and in the > Jabber circles, many people are reluctant to give up their email > addresses to the public eye for fear of spam. Note that Yahoo.com > will, > by default, use a big opaque string as an identifier rather than the > user's Yahoo! account name for this very reason. > > > > > * > This communication, including attachments, is > for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended > recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or > distribution is > strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify > the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and > destroy all copies. > * > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier
James, I don't think we need SRV records to do this. NAPTR would suffice, as that would allow one to transform one string into another. But, it seems that there is an overwhelming preference for using some kind of string of undetermined structure to identify a user which is not of an e-mail format. (I know there is an intent to use a URI, but most users have no idea what a URI is and few really type them properly.) So, while I still think the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] is better for the user world-wide community, I understand the counter-arguments. And, perhaps I'll be proven wrong-- which is OK. Paul > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:21 PM > To: specs@openid.net > Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier > > This would require defining an OpenID SRV record in DNS. Would make > sense for someone to get this formally defined as part of IETF. Could > kinda be done in the same way that Boeing is moving forward definition > of XRI in LDAP.. > > -Original Message- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0100 > From: Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier > To: specs@openid.net > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Paul E. Jones wrote: > > > > Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it > > requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) > > simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > that > > > should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR > > record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com > DNS > > > server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my > > preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: > it > > > could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format > documented in RFC 822. > > > > Funnily enough, I've always percieved the fact that syntactically-valid > but non-existant email addresses are being used as identifiers as a > problem rather than a benefit: > > * It creates confusion for users when something looks like an email > address but it doesn't behave as one. I've seen this sort of confusion > with Jabber servers, where users get confused that their Jabber ID and > email address are not the same, especially when Jabber clients say "For > example, [EMAIL PROTECTED]" under the Jabber ID field. > > * If not all email-shaped OpenID identifiers are actually working > mailboxes, it's likely to lead to a distressing user experience where > the user is first asked to enter their OpenID identifier -- that is, > their email address -- and then they're asked to enter and verify their > email address. At this point, I expect users to at best say "Stupid > computer! Remember what I've told you!" and at worst get confused and > think that the OpenID identifier they entered was not correct. > > * As has often been raised in both the OpenID-with-email and in the > Jabber circles, many people are reluctant to give up their email > addresses to the public eye for fear of spam. Note that Yahoo.com will, > by default, use a big opaque string as an identifier rather than the > user's Yahoo! account name for this very reason. > > > > > *** > ** > This communication, including attachments, is > for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, > confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the > intended > recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution > is > strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify > the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and > destroy all copies. > *** > ** > > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
this discussion, of course, has happened before: http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2008-January/002104.html And paul is correct, IMHO... NAPTR is a better and more flexible way to address this. The original proposal had regex expressions in TXT RRs. which, while not improper, does not have a resolver code base to draw from, and some well-laid groundwork for regex processing libraries for resolvers to use. on the other hand, i've never want to use my email address as my openID, and you'd have to write a new profile which allowed the OP/RP to understand i can prove ownership of the identifier. =peterd On Apr 9, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: > James, > > I don't think we need SRV records to do this. NAPTR would suffice, > as that > would allow one to transform one string into another. > > But, it seems that there is an overwhelming preference for using > some kind > of string of undetermined structure to identify a user which is not > of an > e-mail format. (I know there is an intent to use a URI, but most > users have > no idea what a URI is and few really type them properly.) > > So, while I still think the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] is better for the user > world-wide community, I understand the counter-arguments. And, > perhaps I'll > be proven wrong-- which is OK. > > Paul > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) >> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:21 PM >> To: specs@openid.net >> Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier >> >> This would require defining an OpenID SRV record in DNS. Would make >> sense for someone to get this formally defined as part of IETF. Could >> kinda be done in the same way that Boeing is moving forward >> definition >> of XRI in LDAP.. >> >> -Original Message- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0100 >> From: Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier >> To: specs@openid.net >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Paul E. Jones wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it >>> requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) >>> simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and >> that >> >>> should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR >>> record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com >> DNS >> >>> server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my >>> preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: >> it >> >>> could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format >> documented in RFC 822. >>> >> >> Funnily enough, I've always percieved the fact that syntactically- >> valid >> but non-existant email addresses are being used as identifiers as a >> problem rather than a benefit: >> >> * It creates confusion for users when something looks like an email >> address but it doesn't behave as one. I've seen this sort of >> confusion >> with Jabber servers, where users get confused that their Jabber ID >> and >> email address are not the same, especially when Jabber clients say >> "For >> example, [EMAIL PROTECTED]" under the Jabber ID field. >> >> * If not all email-shaped OpenID identifiers are actually working >> mailboxes, it's likely to lead to a distressing user experience where >> the user is first asked to enter their OpenID identifier -- that is, >> their email address -- and then they're asked to enter and verify >> their >> email address. At this point, I expect users to at best say "Stupid >> computer! Remember what I've told you!" and at worst get confused and >> think that the OpenID identifier they entered was not correct. >> >> * As has often been raised in both the OpenID-with-email and in the >> Jabber circles, many people are reluctant to give up their email >> addresses to the public eye for fear of spam. Note that Yahoo.com >> will, >> by default, use a big opaque string as an identifier rather than the >> user's Yahoo! account name for this very reason. >> >> >> >> >> *
Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier
I really wish everyone would stop calling these identifiers "email addresses." They're no more email addresses than xmpp: uris. You aren't going to change the email standards. You will not forcibly require email servers to recognize xrds discovery. All you're going to get is an identifier that looks something like an email. You may as well say that you're using jabber addresses as openids. I'm going to stop saying you're actually speaking of XRDS document discovery, since that seems to be over everyones head. I'm going to stop saying the openid list isn't the place for this, since we defer endpoint discovery to XRI discover 2.0, though we may switch to XRDS-Simple. But seriously, get off this list. But for goodness sakes, could you stop calling them email addresses? They're just email-looking urls, nothing more.Unless you guys are so crazy as to have a line like "XRDS discovery MUST verify that the identifier accepts email," you're just not talking about email. Respectfully and with far to much sarcasm, http:// Joseph Holsten .com On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Peter Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this discussion, of course, has happened before: > > http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2008-January/002104.html > > And paul is correct, IMHO... NAPTR is a better and more flexible way > to address this. The original proposal had regex expressions in TXT > RRs. which, while not improper, does not have a resolver code base > to draw from, and some well-laid groundwork for regex processing > libraries for resolvers to use. > > on the other hand, i've never want to use my email address as my > openID, and you'd have to write a new profile which allowed the OP/RP > to understand i can prove ownership of the identifier. > > =peterd > > > On Apr 9, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote: > > James, > > > > I don't think we need SRV records to do this. NAPTR would suffice, > > as that > > would allow one to transform one string into another. > > > > But, it seems that there is an overwhelming preference for using > > some kind > > of string of undetermined structure to identify a user which is not > > of an > > e-mail format. (I know there is an intent to use a URI, but most > > users have > > no idea what a URI is and few really type them properly.) > > > > So, while I still think the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] is better for the user > > world-wide community, I understand the counter-arguments. And, > > perhaps I'll > > be proven wrong-- which is OK. > > > > Paul > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of McGovern, James F (HTSC, IT) > >> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:21 PM > >> To: specs@openid.net > >> Subject: Using email address as OpenID identifier > >> > >> This would require defining an OpenID SRV record in DNS. Would make > >> sense for someone to get this formally defined as part of IETF. Could > >> kinda be done in the same way that Boeing is moving forward > >> definition > >> of XRI in LDAP.. > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0100 > >> From: Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: Using email address as OpenID identifier > >> To: specs@openid.net > >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >> > >> Paul E. Jones wrote: > >>> > >>> Perhaps it is important to say, though, that I do not think it > >>> requires the e-mail providers to get on board with this (in my view) > >>> simpler notation. I could use an ID like [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > >> that > >> > >>> should work, if myopenid.com would publish the appropriate NAPTR > >>> record. I could also insert NAPTR records into the packetizer.com > >> DNS > >> > >>> server that would allow me to use my email address, but point at my > >>> preferred OpenID provider. In short, just because the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> syntax is used does not mean that it necessarily an e-mail address: > >> it > >> > >>> could be, but more importantly, it just follows that familiar format > >> documented in RFC 822. > >>> > >> > >> Funnily enough, I've always percieved the fact that syntactically- > >> valid > >> but non-existant email addresses a
IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
> > Dick Hardt wrote: > > > > :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be > > done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy > > for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user > > click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then > > any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not > > expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that > > awareness is higher, having it built into the browser is feasible. I > > of course am biased given the work we have done with Sxipper > > http://sxipper.com :) > For the majority of users, this is probably the most likely path of > introduction to OpenID. Note that it's not just about allowing the user > to do something with one click, but also about being proactive and > informing the user that they can login to a site with an identity they > already have. This can be as simple as telling the browser "identity > agent" (e.g. sxipper) which email addresses the user has and letting the > identity agent figure out which OpenID's the user has that they don't > even know about. > > George Fletcher wrote: > > I think relying party sites that support OpenID could do more to make it > clear on their home pages that they support OpenID (as often it's hidden > behind another click). This could be as simple as some tags that > advertise support for OpenID. Maybe a to the XRDS doc describing > the services of the site. Then the identity agent can discover the > relying party OpenID return_to endpoint and log the user in directly. > Can be used to solve a phishing problem and makes the experience easy > for the user. > > Some related thoughts >http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/clients-to-rescue.html > > http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/passive-identity-meta-system- > markup.html George, I read your two posts with great interest...and then noticed that they were last summer! You are a man ahead of your time. Where has discussion of your "IDMML" gone since your posts? =Drummond ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
Drummond Reed wrote: >>> Dick Hardt wrote: >>> >>> :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be >>> done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy >>> for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user >>> click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then >>> any typing! Back when we started working on the protocols we could not >>> expect this kind of functionality to be in the browsers. Now that >>> awareness is higher, having it built into the browser is feasible. I >>> of course am biased given the work we have done with Sxipper >>> http://sxipper.com :) >>> >> For the majority of users, this is probably the most likely path of >> introduction to OpenID. Note that it's not just about allowing the user >> to do something with one click, but also about being proactive and >> informing the user that they can login to a site with an identity they >> already have. This can be as simple as telling the browser "identity >> agent" (e.g. sxipper) which email addresses the user has and letting the >> identity agent figure out which OpenID's the user has that they don't >> even know about. >> >> George Fletcher wrote: >> >> I think relying party sites that support OpenID could do more to make it >> clear on their home pages that they support OpenID (as often it's hidden >> behind another click). This could be as simple as some tags that >> advertise support for OpenID. Maybe a to the XRDS doc describing >> the services of the site. Then the identity agent can discover the >> relying party OpenID return_to endpoint and log the user in directly. >> Can be used to solve a phishing problem and makes the experience easy >> for the user. >> >> Some related thoughts >>http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/clients-to-rescue.html >> >> http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/passive-identity-meta-system- >> markup.html >> > > George, I read your two posts with great interest...and then noticed that > they were last summer! > > You are a man ahead of your time. > > Where has discussion of your "IDMML" gone since your posts? > > =Drummond Unfortunately, not as far as I'd like :( I've not been able to get back to the ideas and take them farther. With the other things that have happened in the last 6 months there are needed revisions. Maybe this could be a discussion at IIW (if there is enough interest)? At the time there was less consensus around XRDS as a service "description/meta-data" markup. With that changing, the time is better to move this forward. I suspect there are significant synergies with what Peter hinted at in the work with XRDS, IDP Discovery, and SAML. It would be great if identity agents could be the glue that binds the different identity systems together for the user (until we on the technology side get closer to real convergence:). Thanks, George ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
Hi Drummond,
I pushed hard for RP identification for 2 or 3 months back around
October 2006. If anyone wants to go back through the archives,
there's a pile of other important reasons to have some way that an IdP
and/or browser agent can identify an OpenID-enabled site. The antique
thread below lists a few. My proposal too was a tag.
Kind Regards,
Chris Drake
Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 12:51:15 I, you wrote:
CD> Hi Johannes,
CD> I proposed a solution to the "single sign out" problem a month or two
CD> ago.
CD> In fact - a whole range of solutions have been proposed, and relative
CD> merits of all discussed already - does anyone have the free time to go
CD> back over the postings, extract all the knowledge & contributions, and
CD> document them all?
CD> To summarize my proposal - I was seeking a standardized OpenID RP
CD> endpoint interface into which I (as an IdP) or a software agent (eg: a
CD> browser plugin) could "post" user information - be this a login
CD> request, email change request, log-out request, account signup,
CD> account cancelation, or whatever. My preferred implementation was a
CD> tag placed on (and thus identifying) a login page, and within
CD> the link tag, the endpoint of the RP for accepting IdP(OP/agent)
CD> input.
CD> Kind Regards,
CD> Chris Drake
CD> Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 1:04:44 PM, you wrote:
JE>> I continue to believe that we need single-sign-out
JE>> functionality, in particular once OpenID moves up the stack for
JE>> higher-value transactions.
JE>> Some people have made the case that that is undesirable
JE>> and/or impossible; I beg to differ.
JE>> Having automatic authentication against the IdP is quite
JE>> similar to not having a password on the identity at all, in that
JE>> it reduces the confidence that we know the real-world identity of
JE>> the entity/user at the other end. In my view, there's nothing
JE>> wrong with that, but we do need to be able to convey that to
JE>> relying parties in a way that cannot be easily attacked.
JE>> On Nov 6, 2006, at 16:41, Joshua Viney wrote:
JE>> One question re: User Experience and single-sign-on comes to mind:
JE>> How do we treat users who are accessing their IdP and
JE>> Relying Parties via public computers?
JE>> Use Case:
JE>> Good User at public library wants to leave a comment on Blog X
JE>> Blog X requires the person to authenticate via OpenID
JE>> Good User enters their OpenID and successfully authenticates
JE>> via email and password (or whatever) (and authorizes the RP
JE>> ('realm' in 2.0) if necessary) at their IdP
JE>> Good User is redirected to Blog X signed in
JE>> Good User leaves comment
JE>> Good User signs out of Blog X (if sign out is even an option)
JE>> Good User then leaves the public library and goes shopping
JE>> Evil User jumps on computer and proceeds to leave comments at
JE>> any number of OpenID enabled blogs using Good User's OpenID (he
JE>> saw it while looking over Good User's shoulder, or he checks any
JE>> sites that Good User did NOT sign out of that might display his
JE>> OpenID)
JE>> Evil User, uses Good User's signed in IdP session to sign into any number
of sites, etc
JE>> Outcome: Good User's reputation is ruined and his/her OpenID
JE>> is banned from a whole list of Relying Parties. Good User then
JE>> blames their IdP, the Relying Parties and OpenID as a technology
JE>> and tells everyone he/she knows not to use it blogs about it and
JE>> initiates a press release.
JE>> It may be easy to pass this off as an implementation specific
JE>> issue or as "user error", but this use case is somewhat likely for
JE>> 2 reasons:
JE>> 1. A user's OpenID URI is not necessarily a private thing
JE>> (obscurity is not security anyway)
JE>> 2. Users will be at least 1 site removed from their IdP while
JE>> accessing a Relying Party, and no one is use to signing out twice
JE>> 3. It is very very likely that IdP's will use some type of "remember me"
functionality
JE>> One solution to consider would be a global sign-out feature
JE>> on relying party sites that signs users out of their IdP as well.
JE>> Another solution would be to make very specific recommendations
JE>> about messaging users who may be using public computers.
JE>> Josh Viney
JE>> http://www.eastmedia.com -- EastMedia
JE>> http://identity.eastmedia.com -- OpenID, Identity 2.0
JE>> ___
JE>> user-experience mailing list
JE>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JE>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience
Kind Regards,
Chris Drake,
=1id.com
Thursday, April 3, 2008, 4:38:13 AM, you wrote:
>> > Dick Hardt wrote:
>> >
>> > :-) ... that label would be more accurate. There is lots of work to be
>> > done to make OpenID simpler for users. I think that what will be easy
>> > for users is something provided by the browser that lets the user
>> > click to initiate a login or registration. No typing is better then
>> > any typing! Back when we started
RE: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
Chris, I remember that well, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense. I
think when this is combined with George's concept of the other ways in which
a local identity agent can assist the use, then IDMML really starts to gain
some legs.
See also my reply to George.
=Drummond
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:30 PM
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: 'George Fletcher'; 'Dick Hardt'; specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
>
> Hi Drummond,
>
> I pushed hard for RP identification for 2 or 3 months back around
> October 2006. If anyone wants to go back through the archives,
> there's a pile of other important reasons to have some way that an IdP
> and/or browser agent can identify an OpenID-enabled site. The antique
> thread below lists a few. My proposal too was a tag.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Chris Drake
>
>
> Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 12:51:15 I, you wrote:
>
> CD> Hi Johannes,
>
> CD> I proposed a solution to the "single sign out" problem a month or two
> CD> ago.
>
> CD> In fact - a whole range of solutions have been proposed, and relative
> CD> merits of all discussed already - does anyone have the free time to go
> CD> back over the postings, extract all the knowledge & contributions, and
> CD> document them all?
>
> CD> To summarize my proposal - I was seeking a standardized OpenID RP
> CD> endpoint interface into which I (as an IdP) or a software agent (eg: a
> CD> browser plugin) could "post" user information - be this a login
> CD> request, email change request, log-out request, account signup,
> CD> account cancelation, or whatever. My preferred implementation was a
> CD> tag placed on (and thus identifying) a login page, and within
> CD> the link tag, the endpoint of the RP for accepting IdP(OP/agent)
> CD> input.
>
> CD> Kind Regards,
> CD> Chris Drake
>
>
> CD> Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 1:04:44 PM, you wrote:
>
> JE>> I continue to believe that we need single-sign-out
> JE>> functionality, in particular once OpenID moves up the stack for
> JE>> higher-value transactions.
>
>
> JE>> Some people have made the case that that is undesirable
> JE>> and/or impossible; I beg to differ.
>
>
> JE>> Having automatic authentication against the IdP is quite
> JE>> similar to not having a password on the identity at all, in that
> JE>> it reduces the confidence that we know the real-world identity of
> JE>> the entity/user at the other end. In my view, there's nothing
> JE>> wrong with that, but we do need to be able to convey that to
> JE>> relying parties in a way that cannot be easily attacked.
>
>
>
>
>
> JE>> On Nov 6, 2006, at 16:41, Joshua Viney wrote:
>
> JE>> One question re: User Experience and single-sign-on comes to mind:
>
>
> JE>> How do we treat users who are accessing their IdP and
> JE>> Relying Parties via public computers?
>
>
> JE>> Use Case:
> JE>> Good User at public library wants to leave a comment on Blog X
> JE>> Blog X requires the person to authenticate via OpenID
> JE>> Good User enters their OpenID and successfully authenticates
> JE>> via email and password (or whatever) (and authorizes the RP
> JE>> ('realm' in 2.0) if necessary) at their IdP
> JE>> Good User is redirected to Blog X signed in
> JE>> Good User leaves comment
> JE>> Good User signs out of Blog X (if sign out is even an option)
> JE>> Good User then leaves the public library and goes shopping
> JE>> Evil User jumps on computer and proceeds to leave comments at
> JE>> any number of OpenID enabled blogs using Good User's OpenID (he
> JE>> saw it while looking over Good User's shoulder, or he checks any
> JE>> sites that Good User did NOT sign out of that might display his
> JE>> OpenID)
> JE>> Evil User, uses Good User's signed in IdP session to sign into any
> number of sites, etc
>
>
> JE>> Outcome: Good User's reputation is ruined and his/her OpenID
> JE>> is banned from a whole list of Relying Parties. Good User then
> JE>> blames their IdP, the Relying Parties and OpenID as a technology
> JE>> and tells everyone he/she knows not to use it blogs about it and
> JE>> initiates a press release.
>
>
> JE>> It may be easy to pass this off as an implementation specific
> JE>> issue or as "
RE: IDMML (was RE: Using email address as OpenID identifier)
> >> George Fletcher wrote: > >> > >> I think relying party sites that support OpenID could do more to make > it > >> clear on their home pages that they support OpenID (as often it's > hidden > >> behind another click). This could be as simple as some tags that > >> advertise support for OpenID. Maybe a to the XRDS doc describing > >> the services of the site. Then the identity agent can discover the > >> relying party OpenID return_to endpoint and log the user in directly. > >> Can be used to solve a phishing problem and makes the experience easy > >> for the user. > >> > >> Some related thoughts > >>http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/clients-to-rescue.html > >> > >> http://practicalid.blogspot.com/2007/06/passive-identity-meta-system- > >> markup.html > >> > > Drummond wrote: > > George, I read your two posts with great interest...and then noticed > that > > they were last summer! > > > > You are a man ahead of your time. > > > > Where has discussion of your "IDMML" gone since your posts? > > > George wrote: > Unfortunately, not as far as I'd like :( I've not been able to get back > to the ideas and take them farther. With the other things that have > happened in the last 6 months there are needed revisions. Maybe this > could be a discussion at IIW (if there is enough interest)? > > At the time there was less consensus around XRDS as a service > "description/meta-data" markup. With that changing, the time is better > to move this forward. I suspect there are significant synergies with > what Peter hinted at in the work with XRDS, IDP Discovery, and SAML. It > would be great if identity agents could be the glue that binds the > different identity systems together for the user (until we on the > technology side get closer to real convergence:). George, I agree that several things have evolved which could make an IDMML practical now. Seems like a very good topic for IIW. I just put it on the list of proposed sessions: http://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php/Proposed_Topics_2008a =Drummond ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
