I would propose that the term Homesite be used when prompting the
user to type in their IdP. I think the term Identity Provider is
overloaded and not user friendly.
As per my last email I feel the same way about identity provider as well
... I agree with Dick; too overloaded and not user
I kinda get homesite, but I don't understand the thinking behind
membersite: What is this site supposed to be a member of?
It was a member of the network of sites running the protocol.
Membersite sounds too much like you have to join some club to participate.
I feel the same way about
I'd really prefer not to change terminology in the spec right now.
Seems like something we should have thought about four months ago versus
a week after we said it would be final. There is nothing saying user
friendly terms that map to spec terms can't be created for the time
being. I do
+1. Don't be shy to speak your mind.
On 11/30/06 6:48 PM, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Gavin,
As being one that often floats proposals to the list, I'd encourage people to
voice their opinions even if it is just agreeing with someone else. With
silence it is hard to know
Still totally unhappy about the phishing issues, which I blogged
about here:
http://www.links.org/?p=187
I have a proposal which I think could greatly reduce the risk of
phishing: identity providers should /never/ display their login form
(or a link to the form) on a page that has been
With just a quick look at this, it seems like a good idea. I'd like to see
it happen somehow.
Anybody see any problems with doing this?
- Scott
On 1/29/07 2:13 AM, Benjamin Nowack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if you guys could be persuaded to host a little
RDF
Hi Anders,
You might want to check out OAuth ... it was developed for just such a
situation.
- Scott
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Anders Feder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
There have been some discussion over the years about using OpenID for
non-interactive logins. Can someone
