On 10/17/06, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we should be open (pun intended) to making changes.
>
> I really like the OpenID Provider -> shortens to OP, and is very
> specific on what it does.
> I have always found IdP to be a misnomer, and have mentioned it in
> the past.
> Now we
hem, that takes longer than a week. :)
>
> --David
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Drummond Reed
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:43 PM
> To: 'Johannes Ernst'; specs@openid.net
> Subject:
Drummond Reed wrote:
> Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and everywhere
> else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple concatenation of
> "OpenID" and "service provider", so everyone gets it, but nobody will
> associate it with SAML or federation or anything else.
Dick Hardt wrote:
>
> I don't think we actually need to have a specific name when talking
> to users. it is a site that supports OpenID.
I agree.
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
After re-reading this, other messages, and Dick's latest post, I
strongly feel that we should make the change to support both the
portable and IdP-specific identifiers within the protocol.
The two most compelling reasons to me are that it has the fewest
conceptual changes from OpenID Auth 1.x and
s@openid.net
Subject: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary)
Suggestion: sidestep the issue completely and in the spec -- and
everywhere else -- just call it OpenID provider. It's a simple
concatenation of "OpenID" and "service provider", so everyone gets
e.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Johannes Ernst
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:37 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary
We call it "identity host" at NetMesh. It's close enough to "identit
We call it "identity host" at NetMesh. It's close enough to "identity
provider" so people understand it quickly, but does not have the
"provider" part to it (duh).
On Oct 14, 2006, at 20:46, Scott Kveton wrote:
I would propose that the term "Homesite" be used when prompting the
user to type
On 14-Oct-06, at 8:45 PM, Scott Kveton wrote:
>>> I kinda get "homesite", but I don't understand the thinking behind
>>> "membersite": What is this site supposed to be a "member" of?
>>
>> It was a member of the network of sites running the protocol.
>
> "Membersite" sounds too much like you have
>> I kinda get "homesite", but I don't understand the thinking behind
>> "membersite": What is this site supposed to be a "member" of?
>
> It was a member of the network of sites running the protocol.
"Membersite" sounds too much like you have to join some club to participate.
I feel the same way
> I would propose that the term "Homesite" be used when prompting the
> user to type in their IdP. I think the term "Identity Provider" is
> overloaded and not user friendly.
As per my last email I feel the same way about "identity provider" as well
... I agree with Dick; too overloaded and not us
On 12-Oct-06, at 5:44 PM, Gabe Wachob wrote:
> *If* we are going to open up the terminology discussion, for me the
> terms
> "authenticating party" (formerly the "IDP") and "accepting
> party" (formerly
> the "relying party") seem more descriptive. The authenticating
> party issues
> authe
Would you elaborate on those use cases? The current draft does not
support this.
-- Dick
On 13-Oct-06, at 8:52 AM, Granqvist, Hans wrote:
> I can see potential use-cases where Alice doesn't want the
> idp to know what her portable URL is. This would not work
> if the protocol requires "both"
ecs@openid.net
> Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary
>
> I'd have to agree with Gabe about this, let's get it done! :)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 05:43 PM Pacific
On 13-Oct-06, at 12:04 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> Graves, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>> I won't delve into where we are with respect to that capability here,
>> but want to suggest that maybe as we move to OpenID 2.0, and now
>> offer
>> portable IDs (as well as run-time chosen IDs selected at auth-
On 13-Oct-06, at 12:20 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
Marius wrote:
I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user
and
the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two
identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then
>>>
>>> Marius wrote:
>>>
>>> I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user
>>> and
>>> the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two
>>> identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then
>>> there is
>>> no need to mention the IdP-specific i
x27;Josh Hoyt'; specs@openid.net
> Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary
>
> Hans,
>
> This has come up a few times and the mapping between the
> portable identifier and the IdP-specific identifier is
> available in public XRDS documents. So there's no point i
On 12-Oct-06, at 11:47 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
>> Marius wrote:
>>
>> I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user
>> and
>> the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two
>> identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then
>> there i
>> But I suggest we move that terminology discussion to the marketing list.
>>
>
> What marketing list?
http://lists.iwantmyopenid.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing.
=Drummond
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/sp
could try to do so.
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Granqvist, Hans
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:52 AM
To: Josh Hoyt; specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary
I can see potential use-cases where Alice do
I can see potential use-cases where Alice doesn't want the
idp to know what her portable URL is. This would not work
if the protocol requires "both" as per below. Can it be
solved by sending a hash of the portable identifier?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[E
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary
+1
-Original Message-
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Marius Scurtescu'
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject:
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary
There is an established vocabulary, it should be used.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Recordon, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 09:04 PM Pacific Standard
Drummond Reed wrote:
> +1 to getting it done. This area of terminology is more a
> usability/marketing issue at this point. I agree we need to converge on
> good, simple user-facing terms for describing OpenID in ways ordinary
> Web users can easily understand. Although I have great respect for
Graves, Michael wrote:
>
>
> I won't delve into where we are with respect to that capability here,
> but want to suggest that maybe as we move to OpenID 2.0, and now offer
> portable IDs (as well as run-time chosen IDs selected at auth-time?), we
> may be wise to just make the jump to using "home
>Marius wrote:
>
>I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user and
>the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two
>identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then there is
>no need to mention the IdP-specific identifier.
Marius, see the a
TECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Josh Hoyt
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: Marius Scurtescu
> Cc: specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary
>
> On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
TECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Josh Hoyt
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: Marius Scurtescu
> Cc: specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary
>
> On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary
+1 to getting it done. This area of
terminology is more a usability/marketing issue at this point. I agree we need to
converge on good, simple user-facing terms for describing OpenID in ways ordinary
Web users can easily understand. Although I have
2006 8:56 PM
To: Marius Scurtescu
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary
On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka
> delegated identifiers) at all IMO.
If there is a specified mecha
Title: RE: Delegation discussion summary
I'd have to agree with Gabe about this, let's get it done! :)
-Original Message-
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 05:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Graves, Michael; specs@
On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka
> delegated identifiers) at all IMO.
If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported for using a
portable identifier, all IdPs will support it, so identifiers wi
On 12-Oct-06, at 10:29 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
> Both portable and IdP-specific identifiers
> --
>
> Include both the portable identifier and the IdP-specific identifier
> in the request and response ([4]_ and
> [5]_)::
>
> openid.identity = http://my.idp.spe
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Graves, Michael
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:00 PM
> To: specs@openid.net
> Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary
>
> Josh, et al,
>
> I believe the first of your options -- "B
Josh, et al,
I believe the first of your options -- "Both portable and IdP-specific
identifiers" -- is the superior choice here. It preserves OpenID 1
semantics, and unambiguously makes room for portable identifiers. I
don't see the added burden carried by relying party code for this option
viz.
+1. Josh, you did a great job of not just distilling it down to the essence,
but also nailing the right semantics for the underlying feature, which is
identifier portability.
Nice work.
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Josh Hoyt
37 matches
Mail list logo
