+1 On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:44 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/ http://twitter.com/_nat_en
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
