Best Practice and Example Identifier Provider - Revision history

Tom: /* Non-goals for this Example */

2019-11-26T01:30:47Z

‎Non-goals for this Example

2019-11-26T01:29:26Z

‎Non-goals for this Example

2018-10-18T21:42:52Z

‎Site documents and user expressed intent

2018-10-18T21:41:50Z

‎Site documents and user expressed intent

2018-10-18T21:40:50Z

‎Site documents and user expressed intent

2018-09-17T18:05:04Z

‎References and Coordination

2018-09-17T18:04:14Z

‎Issues and Comments

2018-08-14T22:01:57Z

‎Questions and Answers for Designers and Developers

2018-08-14T22:01:15Z

‎Content

2018-07-31T03:27:50Z

‎Questions and Answers for Designers and Developers

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ===Non-goals for this Example===
-This project is limited to the case of a real-world user interacting with one Identifier Provide over an extended period of time using one or more  Relying Parties (RP). The example does not consider the case where privacy enhancing [[Technology Solution]] is used to prevent linkage between different instances of use of the internet.
+This project is limited to the case of a real-world user interacting with one Identifier Provide over an extended period of time using one or more  Relying Parties (RP). The example does not consider the case where some privacy enhancing [[Technology Solution]] is used to prevent linkage between different instances of use of the internet.
 ===Design Thinking===

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ===Non-goals for this Example===
-This project is limited to the case of a real-world user interacting with one Identifier Provide over an extended period of time using one or more  Relying Parties (RP). The example does not consider the case where privacy enhancing technology is used to prevent linkage between different instances of use of the internet.
+This project is limited to the case of a real-world user interacting with one Identifier Provide over an extended period of time using one or more  Relying Parties (RP). The example does not consider the case where privacy enhancing [[Technology Solution]] is used to prevent linkage between different instances of use of the internet.
 ===Design Thinking===

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 ====Site documents and user expressed intent====
-See the page at [[Best_Practice_and_Example_Relying_Party#Site_documents_and_user_expressed_intent|Best Practice and Example Relying Party]].
+See the page at [[Best_Practice_and_Example_Relying_Party#Site_documents_and_user_expressed_intent|Best Practice and Example Relying Party]] for a way to track [[User Stipulation]]s..
 ===Schema used in the Example===

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 ====Site documents and user expressed intent====
-See the page at [[Best Practice and Example Relying Party]].
+See the page at [[Best_Practice_and_Example_Relying_Party#Site_documents_and_user_expressed_intent|Best Practice and Example Relying Party]].
 ===Schema used in the Example===

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 ====Site documents and user expressed intent====
-Note that this record (called the stipulation) allows a range of responses from the user, such as would be the case if the user accepted data sharing with affiliated companies, but not with unrelated parties.
+See the page at [[Best Practice and Example Relying Party]].
 ===Schema used in the Example===

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, 17 September 2018
Line 196:		Line 196:
	==References and Coordination==		==References and Coordination==

−	*The page at [[Compliant Implementation of an IdP on ASP.NET]] gives a more technical description of the process for building a compliant Relying Party web site from scratch.
	*The Microsoft web site has a description of the [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/api/microsoft.aspnet.identity.corecompat Namespaces in ASP.NET Core] that can be used as an alternate identity schema. It was the precursor for the schema used here.		*The Microsoft web site has a description of the [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/api/microsoft.aspnet.identity.corecompat Namespaces in ASP.NET Core] that can be used as an alternate identity schema. It was the precursor for the schema used here.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 17 September 2018
Line 205:		Line 205:

	[[Category:User Experience]]		[[Category:User Experience]]
−	[[Category:~~Compliant Implementations~~]]	+	[[Category:Best Practice]]

@@ Line 188: / Line 188: @@
 Other issues to look at:
-* Some method for creating a strong web site identity, e.g. Federation or AV Certs
+* Some method for creating a strong web site identity, e.g. [[Federation]] or [[EV Cert]]s
 * Can the Kantara Initiative publish a PP that web sites can include as their own by explicit reference or as a result of using the IDEF TrustMark?
 * Partnering with a company, later who implements the RP or is a provider to the RP (IdP), to write up our plans as a use case

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ## to create an IDEF compliant [[Identifier or Attribute Provider]] (IAP) web site so that Kantara can be a paradigm for its own principle
 ## to create a database of site members that can be used to create identity claims for various Kantara sites and activities.
-# Support federation to more that one external widely used or IDEF compliant [[Best Practice and Example Relying Party]].
+# Support [[Federation]] to more that one external widely used or IDEF compliant [[Best Practice and Example Relying Party]].
 # Support two factor authentication.
 # Provide in-line guidance in the example code of the IDEF requirements that a developer of any web site can apply.