- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 19:23:27 +0200
- To: bnowack@semsol.com
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, foaf-dev of a Friend <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>
- Message-Id: <869E2BF5-4610-477D-A8FB-B6F57D70C283@bblfish.net>
On 1 Apr 2008, at 12:33, Benjamin Nowack wrote: > So, here is a new proposal that I personally think makes more sense > than inventing a whole new protocol: > > We write/tweak > > OpenID consumers so that they > * send headers to advertize their OpenID support > * follow an agreed-on pattern WRT signing in or that > provide (possibly again via an HTTP header) a hint how to > initiate the redirect > * standardize the session instantiation/re-detection (e.g. an > agreed-on cookie name) after a successful login > > and OpenID Servers that > * have a standardized and simplified login and redirect-back > mechanism I think the idea of allowing connections via OpenId is a feasible one, though clearly a hack on a hack. But why not? This would be a good way to show why something like the RDFAuth_Sketch spec [1] is also needed. So using OpenId will require the client (in Knowee's case the server) to know the OpenId username and password, and be entitled to automatically fill it in. (I wonder why/how that is more secure than having access to a private key?) It will require us to develop a simple RDF vocabulary so that public foaf files can say things like "for more info log in here with your openid". <protected> openid:login <login> . <login> cookie:name "cookie". then the client will be able to capture and replay the two redirects as a normal web browser would: - from the server via the client to the Identity Provider (IdP) - from the IdP via the client to the openid login service <login> then the extra verification from the <login> to the IDP so the number of connections we have are like this: 1. client GETs public foaf file 2. client finds protected resource and requirement to login via openid for more info 3. client sends form with info to <login endpoint> (over SSL) and gets a redirect to the IdP endpoint 4. client sends redirected request to IdP endpoint and received a form for username/password (over SSL) 5. client fills in user name password and send to IdP and gets redirected to <login> (over SSL) 6. client redirects to login (over SSL) 6.1 server sends verification request to IdP which returns IdP ok response (over SSL?) 6.2 server sends cookie to client 7. with session cookie client now asks for the requested resource There are a lot of TCP requests, 8 to be precise, most of which are over SSL, which is a complex protocol, itself involving a lot of encryption handshakes. The RDFAuth_sketch [1] may need only 3 (with only one over SSL) and after caching may only need 1 SSL connection (no need to fetch the public key or the foaf file again). In order to reduce the need for clients to make unnecessary connections, it would help to have an RDF vocabulary to describe who can log into protected resources, so that clients could make some estimate of whether they should bother following a link. From what is described here, this requires servers to know OpenId, and to put this information in their RDF files. Is that all? Clearly servers that later implement and RDFAuth_Sketch protocol will be much faster to interact with. Henry [1] http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/rdfauth_sketch_of_a_buzzword
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 17:24:35 UTC