>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
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Reply via email to