I agree that there is no practical use for the association handle if we have a per artifact secret.
That is why it may be useful to think of artefact as something not dependent on the existing redirect binding. John B. On 2010-02-16, at 6:34 PM, Allen Tom wrote: > Hi John - > > I was not suggesting that everyone use Artifact binding - presumably the OP > will indicate that it supports Artifact binding in its discovery document, > and it'll be up to the RP initiate the artifact request. > > Also, regarding my previous proposal to ditch the association request for > artifact binding - I concede that artifact binding is orthogonal to > associations. > > However, if one of the goals of artifact binding is to shorten the size of > the requests/responses, then eliminating the association handle would be > consistent with this goal. > > Allen > > On 2/16/10 1:09 PM, "John Bradley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We can't force everyone to do artifact. We will still need to support >> associations in RP's. >> We cant just ditch the concept completely. >> > _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
