Re: Changing Terminology (was RE: IdP term in spec (was RE: Delegation discussion summary))

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
I think we should be open (pun intended) to making changes. I really like the OpenID Provider - shortens to OP, and is very specific on what it does. I have always found IdP to be a misnomer, and have mentioned it in the past. Now we have a great candidate, that provides more clarity, and it

RE: Pre-Draft 11

2006-10-17 Thread Prasanta Behera
The example in section 4.1.3 does not match. mode:error error:This is an example message openid.mode=erroropenid.err Should it be openid.mode:error? (Ouch!) I think = instead of : is better. Thanks, /Prasanta -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Re: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
On 16-Oct-06, at 12:24 PM, Martin Atkins wrote: Chris Drake wrote: There seem to be a lot of people on this list who want to hate and loathe the IdP, and grant all power to the RP. I do not understand this reasoning: our users will select the IdP they trust and like, then they will be

Re: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
On 13-Oct-06, at 3:43 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote: On 10/13/06, Marius Scurtescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IdP is issuing a signed assertion about these identifiers, I would assume the IdP to check the link between these identifiers. Sending two identifiers does not *prevent* the IdP from

Re: Summarizing Where We're At

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
On 16-Oct-06, at 11:21 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote: * Bare Request - Proposed, no discussion yet. -0 (YAGNI) Sorry, I don't know what YAGNI means ... ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Re: Summarizing Where We're At

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
On 15-Oct-06, at 7:25 PM, Recordon, David wrote: Hi Chris, The rush is that 2.0 has been in a drafting phase for almost six months now, with draft five being posted at the end of June. While we certainly can continue taking the time to make everyone happy, we ultimately will never have

Re: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-17 Thread Hans Granqvist
Drummond Reed wrote: I think you may have me mistaken for somebody else on the list (. . .) Double-blind anonymity in action? ;) -Hans ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Re: Summarizing Where We're At

2006-10-17 Thread Josh Hoyt
On 10/17/06, Dick Hardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Authentication Age - Re-proposed today adding clarity in motivation, general consensus is needed to add to specification. -1 There is no reason for this to be in the core. I could make more arguments about it, but I'll

Re: Re[2]: Identifier portability: the fundamental issue

2006-10-17 Thread Kevin Turner
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 13:29 +1000, Chris Drake wrote: Now - how comfortable are you with the idea of letting 1.5 billion Chinese people use OpenID Ideally we'd have the input of the SocialBrain Foundation on that. Those are the folks who put together OpenID.cn. Has anyone on this list talked

Re: Consolidated Delegate Proposal

2006-10-17 Thread Dick Hardt
I don't see there being general consensus. I think Chris Drake was supportive of there being less disclosure as well. Josh said it could be any of the three, but preferred two parameters. Brad did not really care. I do care and would like to see direct criticism on the explanation I wrote