To be clear, what I have suggested is not the bulk exchange of multiple users.
It is the method to treat number of attributes as a group that requires some
integrity within them. When it comes to CX, by design, it does not do multi
user exchane either since it requires the parties to explicitly
Agreed with Allen, let's modernize SREG so that the spec matches how
people are using it already with 2.0 though point people to using AX
instead. I'd prefer this happen within the same WG.
--David
On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
Hi Dick,
I'll be happy to add language to the
>
>
> -Dick
>
>
>
> *From:* Breno de Medeiros [mailto:br...@google.com ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:39 PM
> *To:* Dick Hardt
> *Cc:* da...@sixapart.com; Allen Tom; Martin Atkins; Nat Sakimura; OpenID
> Specs Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: Suggested scoping for AX
03, 2009 2:39 PM
To: Dick Hardt
Cc: da...@sixapart.com; Allen Tom; Martin Atkins; Nat Sakimura;
OpenID Specs Mailing List
Subject: Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt
wrote:
1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok wi
=...@tokyo via iPhone
On 2009/02/04, at 7:39, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt
wrote:
1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it
being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add
language directing people to AX
Hi Dick,
I'll be happy to add language to the revised SREG spec to strongly
encourage all new deployments to use AX and to NOT use SREG, however,
given the current popularity of SREG, I think it's a good idea to
clarify and modernize it a bit. Speaking on behalf of Yahoo, once we
have a usab
ingle subject.
-Dick
From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:br...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:39 PM
To: Dick Hardt
Cc: da...@sixapart.com; Allen Tom; Martin Atkins; Nat Sakimura; OpenID Specs
Mailing List
Subject: Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM,
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in
> if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing
> people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included
> in this WG or
