On 27-Dec-06, at 11:11 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
I think using cancel would add consistency between the modes, any
reason I'm not seeing why it is a bad choice?
Because then, only from the message contents, the RP wouldn't be able
to distinguish between responses to immediate and
; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Consistency of negative responses to checkid_immediate
requests
Reviving an old thread...
On 12/14/06, Johnny Bufu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14-Dec-06, at 12:13 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 12/13/06, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Hoyt wrote:
It's
Reviving an old thread...
On 12/14/06, Johnny Bufu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14-Dec-06, at 12:13 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 12/13/06, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Hoyt wrote:
It's confusing to me make the failure response to an immediate mode
request be id_res, especially
On 12/13/06, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Hoyt wrote:
It's confusing to me make the failure response to an immediate mode
request be id_res, especially if that is not the failure response
for setup mode. I can't see a reason that they can't both use the
cancel response to
On 12/14/06, Johnny Bufu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14-Dec-06, at 12:13 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 12/13/06, Martin Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Hoyt wrote:
It's confusing to me make the failure response to an immediate mode
request be id_res, especially if that is not the failure
The internet has only standards worth the name that were only
supposed to last for a short time. I think past experience shows that
our assumption needs to be everything stays around forever.
We haven't even solved the \n\a problem yet.
On Dec 14, 2006, at 16:14, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On
Josh Hoyt wrote:
It's confusing to me make the failure response to an immediate mode
request be id_res, especially if that is not the failure response
for setup mode. I can't see a reason that they can't both use the
cancel response to indicate that the OP or end user do not wish to
