On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 22:47 -0700, Drummond Reed wrote: > +1 to Josh's point. IMHO identifier portability is "sacred". If anyone > disagrees, please post, can we assume we have consensus on this?
Yes, portability is sacred. I was suggesting that portability can be resolved between the user and the IdP. I cannot see how the protocol can help this by passing two identifiers. And if only the portable identifier is passed then there is no need to mention the IdP-specific identifier. Marius > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Josh Hoyt > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM > To: Marius Scurtescu > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary > > On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka > > delegated identifiers) at all IMO. > > If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported for using a > portable identifier, all IdPs will support it, so identifiers will > actually be portable. You'd have a very difficult time trying to get > people here to remove portable identifier support from the OpenID > protocol. > > Josh > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > _______________________________________________ specs mailing list email@example.com http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs