Microid mailing list

[Fred Stutzman <fred AT metalab.unc.edu>]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Yaniv Golan wrote:

> Great, though I would like to revise my proposal:
>
> I think it would make more sense to specify the verification element
> first, and then the hashing algorithm, since in some cases the hashing
> algorithm may not be relevant.
>
> So, instead of:
>
> <meta name="microid"
> content="sh1:email:e5de55ef248b5f8b06d38253cac0ae725d6455fb">
>
> I suggest:
>
> <meta name="microid"
> content="email:sh1:e5de55ef248b5f8b06d38253cac0ae725d6455fb">
>
> Re your suggest to include both elements, I think it makes sense:
>
> <meta name="microid"
> content="email+url:sh1:e5de55ef248b5f8b06d38253cac0ae725d6455fb">
>
> Any other thoughts on this? Is this needed or are we over-specifying
> here?


I think you're onto something... I've wondered how we would handle legacy 
in MicroID once we formalize on a spec, and I think there is something 
here.  Now just to start pushing this forward....my finals end on Dec 16 so 
I have lots of free time between then and Jan 10 to work on this stuff.

-Fred











> Yaniv
>
> --
> Yaniv Golan
> My profile on Yedda: http://yedda.com/people/9512186217351/
> My ClaimID: http://claimid.com/yanivg
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter AT jabber.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:37 PM
> > To: yaniv AT yedda.com
> > Cc: microid AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Re: [Microid] MicroID hashing algorithm(s) and
> > normalization
> >
> > Yaniv Golan wrote:
>
> [deleted]
>
> > > Would change to
> > >
> > >    <meta name="microid"
> > >        content="sh1:e5de55ef248b5f8b06d38253cac0ae725d6455fb" />
> > >
> > > Small change, but it allows future revisions of the spec to
> > support
> > > legacy support. To rephrase the old saying, "better metadata than
> > > sorry" :)
> > >
> > > In fact, given the introduction of OpenID into the discussion, I
> > think
> > > that it would make sense to load the content with additional
> > metadata,
> > > such as the element used as the verification anchor:
> > >
> > > In the case of email:
> > >
> > >    <meta name="microid"
> > content="sh1:email:e5de55ef248b5f8b06d38253cac0ae725d6455fb" />
> > > In the case the OpenID identity is used instead of email:
> > >
> > >    <meta name="microid"
> > content="sh1:openid:e5de55ef248b5f8b06d38253cac0ae725d6455fb"/>
> >
> > I have no deep objections to that approach since it's more flexible.
> > However I think we'd want to at least maintain a registry of values
> > for
> > the hashing/MAC algorithms and the element (or elements?) used.
> >
> > So for hash/MAC we'd have things like sha1, sha256, hmac.
> >
> > Do we need to list both elements that are used to make the microid?
> > E.g., the two elements could be an HTTP URL and a mailto: URI, two
> > OpenIDs, an OpenID and a Jabber ID, or whatever.
> >
> > Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Microid mailing list
> Microid AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/microid

--
Fred Stutzman
claimID.com
919-260-8508
AIM: chimprawk