>Marius wrote: > >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, see the analysis at http://www.lifewiki.net/openid/ConsolidatedDelegationProposal, now updated to include Josh's lastest thinking from http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-October/000357.html. In sum, not being able to send the IdP-specific identifier: a) forces the IdP to redo resolution, which is unnecessary and slows performance, and b) prevents the protocol from being stateless. Have the RP send both the portable identifier and the IdP-specific identifier solves both problems. =Drummond _______________________________________________ specs mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs