Re: Some PAPE Wording Clarifications

2007-10-23 Thread Johnny Bufu
+ [...] For example it is recommended that if the OP +specified the Multi-Factor Physical Authentication policy and the RP +requested the Multi-Factor Authentication policy, that the RP's +requirements were met. This puts undue requirements on the RP

Re: Some PAPE Wording Clarifications

2007-10-23 Thread David Recordon
I see both sides of this. At the end of the day the RP is ultimately making the decision as to if the user can proceed or not. Just as in SREG if the RP says email is required and the user/OP choose not to provide it, the RP still has to decide what to do. I do agree that it is easier on

Re: Some PAPE Wording Clarifications

2007-10-23 Thread David Recordon
Cool, committed. http://svn.openid.net/diff.php?repname=specificationspath=% 2Fprovider_authentication_policy_extension%2F1.0%2Ftrunk%2Fopenid- provider-authentication-policy-extension-1_0.xmlrev=378sc=1 We ready to publish Draft 2? --David On Oct 23, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Barry Ferg wrote:

Some PAPE Wording Clarifications

2007-10-22 Thread David Recordon
Hey Johnny and Jonathan, Just checked in some clarifications, review would be appreciated. http://openid.net/pipermail/commits/2007-October/000381.html Thanks, --David ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs