Yep...
-Original Message-
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 7:54 PM
To: Recordon, David; specs@openid.net
Subject: RE: Making return_to Optional
David, in the message below, I assume you meant to say return_to is NOW
an optional parameter... instead of return_to is NOT an optional
parameter That's the only way I can make sense of it.
Am I right?
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Recordon, David
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:10 AM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Making return_to Optional
From the call last week and the proposal at
http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-October/000430.html, return_to is
not an optional parameter in the authentication request. The idea being
that a RP not sending it signals the IdP to not redirect the user back;
rather an extension will be doing something useful. I've checked in
this change, though would like it reviewed since I am not completely
happy with all the wording.
http://openid.net/svn/comp.php?repname=specificationspath=compare%5B%5
[EMAIL PROTECTED]compare
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ma
nualorder=1
Thanks,
--David
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
