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 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 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/OpenIDProposals > > * IdP-supported Delegation > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000002.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 being performed > > * Rename trust_root to realm > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000018.html) > Accepted (+3, 0, -0) for draft 10, needs to be changed in the spec. > > * Remove SIGNALL > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000018.html) > Accepted (+4, 0, -1) for draft 10, needs to be changed in the spec. > > * Standard multivalue parameter mechanism > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000139.html) > Still being discussed, need feedback on Dick's follow-up at > http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-October/000149.html > > * Request nonce and name > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-October/000149.html) > Still being discussed, openid.nonce has been renamed to > openid.response_nonce for draft 10. Agreement to keep the name > "nonce", little discussion on adding a request nonce. > > * 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. > > * Bare response / bare request > (http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-September/000142.html) > Still being discussed > > My current interpretation of the discussions, is that if we want to > try and get something out this week then we should focus on a standard > multivalue parameter mechanism as well as deciding if we wish to add a > request nonce. There does not seem to be agreement that the > authentication age proposal should be part of the core specification, > rather that it is better to start as an extension. Also the bare > response / bare request proposal seems to require more discussion. > > Agreement? Disagreement? > > --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 _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs