On 12-Oct-06, at 11:47 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:

>> 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

Not necessarily. When you register with the IdP most likely you will  
claim all your portable identifiers with this IdP, so the IdP knows  
about them.

> b)
> prevents the protocol from being stateless.

How? The RP deals only with the portable identifier and this is the  
only thing the IdP sends back. Why do you need state?


Marius

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

Reply via email to