On 3-Oct-06, at 11:48 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
> On 10/3/06, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Authentication age
>> > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000141.html)
>> > Still being discussed, varying opinions on if the spec
>> mandates
>> > this will IdPs cooperat
On 10/3/06, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Authentication age
> > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000141.html)
> > Still being discussed, varying opinions on if the spec mandates
> > this will IdPs cooperate. Proposal of having it as an extension.
>
> +1 - per
send tonight.)
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Daugherty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Recordon, David'; specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: What is delegation for? (was Re: Wrapping Up Pr
On 2-Oct-06, at 4:46 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
> * IdP-supported Delegation
> (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/02.html)
> Postponed as it changes a fundamental way in which delegation is
> architected in that currently the IdP has no way to know that
> delegation
> is
On 2-Oct-06, at 5:34 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
>
> * Bare response / bare request (adds complexity)
> -0.5 I'm not convinced that it's necessary (there are other ways to
> do it that don't make the spec more complicated)
How does it add complexity? If the return_to value is NULL/blank/
missing, th
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 22:52 -0700, Drummond Reed wrote:
> Although it's easy to dismiss the privacy issue, there *can* be use
> cases under which an end-user may not want to reveal to their IP the
> identifier they present to the RP.
The problem is, the mapping of RP-facing-identifier to
IdP-facin
# Although it's easy to dismiss the privacy issue, there *can* be use
# cases under which an end-user may not want to reveal to their IP the
# identifier they present to the RP.
What is an example of such a use case?
--
Jonathan Daugherty
JanRain, Inc.
___
On Oct 2, 2006, at 22:07, Josh Hoyt wrote:
On 10/2/06, Johannes Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It appears to me that OpenID should be able to do the same thing that
we've been doing in LID: "one-way" nonces.
This is the way that it's currently written up in the spec. When I
wrote it up I h
at any day this week (except Thurs. 4-6PM PT, which
is the XRI TC telecon).
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Josh Hoyt
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:44 PM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: What is delegation for?
On 10/2/06, Johannes Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It appears to me that OpenID should be able to do the same thing that
> we've been doing in LID: "one-way" nonces.
This is the way that it's currently written up in the spec. When I
wrote it up I had LID nonces in mind.
The current proposal
L PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh
Hoyt
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:44 PM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: What is delegation for? (was Re: Wrapping Up Proposals)
On 10/2/06, Recordon, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* IdP-supported Delegation
While it reduces co
.html
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh
Hoyt
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 6:44 PM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: What is delegation for? (was Re: Wrapping Up Proposals)
On 10/2/06, Recordon, David <[EM
On 10/2/06, Recordon, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * IdP-supported Delegation
> While it reduces complexity, it means that each IdP now has to
> handle delegated identifiers as well. As the point of delegation is to
> use an identifier your IdP doesn't assert, for whatever reason, I
D] On Behalf Of Josh
Hoyt
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 5:35 PM
To: Recordon, David
Cc: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Wrapping Up Proposals
On 10/2/06, Recordon, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreement? Disagreement?
Generally agreed, though I'd like to see a verdict on IdP-sup
On 10/2/06, Recordon, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreement? Disagreement?
Generally agreed, though I'd like to see a verdict on IdP-supported delegation.
I think that it's a good idea to put the bar high for putting new
stuff in the spec. The spec has been in the works for a long time, an
Yeah, my mis-type on the SIGNALL.
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of larry drebes
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:57 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Wrapping Up Proposals
+1 to fully vetting existing proposals and wrapping up
+1 to fully vetting existing proposals and wrapping up this week.
I don't think anyone is -1 on removing SIGNALL.
larry-
Recordon, David wrote:
> Since it is now October, I'm looking to have us quickly wrap up the
> proposals on the table and not add any additional (unless of course
> things com
Since it is now October, I'm looking to have us quickly wrap up the
proposals on the table and not add any additional (unless of course
things come up during implementations); though we shouldn't rush
discussion either.
Here is my read on the discussion thus far:
http://www.lifewiki.net/openid/Ope
18 matches
Mail list logo
