Difference between revisions of "OpenID in Smartphones"

From MgmtWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Context)
m (Context)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
* The goal for would be a [[Self-issued OpenID Provider]] [[User Experience]] that is as good as the front channel [[OpenID Connect]] experience.
 
* The goal for would be a [[Self-issued OpenID Provider]] [[User Experience]] that is as good as the front channel [[OpenID Connect]] experience.
 
** The user experience with creating the new identifier must result in 80 - 90% success rate.
 
** The user experience with creating the new identifier must result in 80 - 90% success rate.
** The user Experience with navigating and registry with a new RP must be nearly as good as that will using Facebook to perform the same function.
+
** The user Experience with navigating and registry with a new RP must be nearly as good as that using Facebook to perform the same function.
 
** The user experience of loosing access due to accident of technology upgrade must be 90 - 95% successful on first attempt.
 
** The user experience of loosing access due to accident of technology upgrade must be 90 - 95% successful on first attempt.
  

Revision as of 22:21, 7 December 2020

Full Title or Meme

This use case focuses on the parts of enabling a Self-issued Identifier within a battery-powered mobile device that will impact the protocol that is used when the device acts as a Self-issued OpenID Provider.

Context

  • This use case assumes the user with a Smartphone that wants to enable a Self-issued Identifier using only that phone
  • Both Apple and Android have learned that energy consuming applications will drain a user's battery and work to limit apps that do that.
  • Also no app that resulting in huge drains on the Smartphone battery would survive for long in the marketplace.
  • The goal for would be a Self-issued OpenID Provider User Experience that is as good as the front channel OpenID Connect experience.
    • The user experience with creating the new identifier must result in 80 - 90% success rate.
    • The user Experience with navigating and registry with a new RP must be nearly as good as that using Facebook to perform the same function.
    • The user experience of loosing access due to accident of technology upgrade must be 90 - 95% successful on first attempt.

Problem

  • Given the current browser reality, SIOP will not duplicate the same seamless, in-browser window experience,
  • In other words, a user cannot get a signin experience on a RP site for first time signin with a DID that they can get with, say, Google or FB.

Preconditions

  • The user has a smartphone that can handle the secure storage of user secrets.


References