; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley';
specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form
Discovery Working Group)
I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in
OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out before we make changes to how OpenID
(was Proposal to form
Discovery Working Group)
I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in
OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out before we make changes to how OpenID
discovery works. I'd much rather make this sort of change once rather
than
twice.
--David
*To:* Drummond Reed
*Cc:* sappe...@gmail.com; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley'; specs@openid.net
*Subject:* Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form
Discovery Working Group)
I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in
OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out
@openid.net
Subject: Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form
Discovery Working Group)
I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in OASIS,
IETF, and W3C shakes out before we make changes to how OpenID discovery
works. I'd much rather make this sort
Sakimura
Cc: John Bradley; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Proposal to form Discovery Working Group
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura n-sakim...@nri.co.jp wrote:
2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service.
In the current terminology, OP spans both
Bradley; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Proposal to form Discovery Working Group
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura n-
sakim...@nri.co.jp wrote:
2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service.
In the current terminology, OP spans both Discovery Service
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura n-sakim...@nri.co.jp wrote:
2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service.
In the current terminology, OP spans both Discovery Service and
Authentication Service.
We should be explicit about it.
+1. I would like to
Agreed with Breno here. We're going to have to make a change to
OpenID discovery at some point over the next year as other groups
finish their evolutions of Yadis, XRDS, etc. I like this being a
separate WG since it means that the core Auth spec can choose to move
to using it at a later
For the time being, I would be happy if the 2.1 spec moved all the
references to discovery to a second document.
The first version of the separate document would just clone the
current approach to discovery in the 2.0 spec. If the updated version
that explains XRD discovery is available before
BTW, the discovery WG proposal does not appear in the new version of the wiki.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Breno de Medeiros br...@google.com wrote:
For the time being, I would be happy if the 2.1 spec moved all the
references to discovery to a second document.
The first version of the
Can you please put it on
http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AOpenID_Discovery?
Thanks,
--David
On Dec 22, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
BTW, the discovery WG proposal does not appear in the new version of
the wiki.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Breno de Medeiros
Done. Also updated the status of both the Discovery and the AX 2.0 WG
to say status = Draft charter submitted for consideration by the
specs council
I have emailed the OpenID spec with the proposed charters, so I
understand that the above status description is accurate.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008
It is part of the scope of this group to develop a best-practices
guidance for transition from YADIS to XRD discovery.
Full backward-compatibility is not a goal, since at least one new
mechanism for publishing discovery information is expected to make
part of XRD discovery (dynamic mapping type),
Can you add a clear statement to the draft charter that implementations already
using Yadis will remain compatible with the output of this working group,
since, as I understand it, XRDS-Simple is intended to be compatible with Yadis?
Or is backwards-compatibility with existing OpenID 2.0
14 matches
Mail list logo
