Re: [voiceinteraction] Move accounts/authentication box to individual IPA's?

Where would a trust registry reside?

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:57 PM <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org> wrote:

> Dear Debbie,
>
> Yes, some comments from my side
>
> The description of this component reads:
> A registry that knows how to access the known IPA Providers, i.e., which
> are available and credentials to access them.
>
> It is more of the kind that some instance should know which IPAs are
> available. So, it does not contradict your view. That part however is not
> part of the diagrams.
>
> Dirk
>
> Am 14.10.2021 20:35 schrieb Deborah Dahl
> <Dahl@conversational-Technologies.com>:
>
> Looking at the architecture diagram
>
> https://w3c.github.io/voiceinteraction/voice%20interaction%20drafts/paArchitecture-1-2.htm#walkthrough,
> I'm wondering if the
> accounts/authentication box should be removed from the Provider Selection
> Service box and added to each individual IPA Provider.
> That way each individual IPA provider would be responsible for
> authenticating users according to its own requirements. Some IPA's
> might want to be completely open and some, like a financial site, might
> have strict authentication requirements. It's hard to think
> of how a central accounts/authentication step would be able to meet the
> needs of any arbitrary IPA.
> This architecture would also be more in line with the Web, where each
> website is responsible for authenticating its own users.
> Comments?
>
>
>
>