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.


> =Drummond 
> -----Original Message-----
> Of Josh Hoyt
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: Marius Scurtescu
> Cc: specs@openid.net
> 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
> specs@openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

specs mailing list

Reply via email to