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
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
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
Here are my reactions to what's outstanding:
On 10/15/06, Recordon, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Request Nonce and Name
- Has been partially implemented, openid.nonce -
openid.response_nonce, no agreement on the need of a request nonce
specifically, rather discussion has evolved into
on two-identifier
Change default session type
* +1
Bare request
* 0
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh
Hoyt
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Summarizing Where We're
I want to avoid the
wait-I-thought-we-decided-something-else or
ahh-yes-seems-we-forgot-it-had-an-impact-there
delays . . .
Spec work gain tremendously by unambiguous up-front
definitions of what *exactly* is voted on.
A good way to do this is to force the vote to be
on an explicit
Of Recordon, David
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:24 PM
To: Josh Hoyt; specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Summarizing Where We're At
And here are my votes:
Request nonce and name
* Take no action
Authentication age
* -1, write as an extension first
Remove setup_url
* 0 for removing, +1 for asking
Hi David,
What is the rush for? There's a lot of unhappy people here due to
missing protocol elements.
I for one believe the lack of privacy considerations is an entire
OpenID killer.
Is there a reason why you've omitted my IdP-initiated login proposal
from your short list (also known as
Message-
From: Chris Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:09 PM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Summarizing Where We're At
Hi David,
What is the rush for? There's a lot of unhappy people here due to
missing protocol elements.
I for one believe
