Hi David,

What is the rush for?  There's a lot of unhappy people here due to
missing protocol elements.

I for one believe the lack of privacy considerations is an entire
OpenID "killer".

Is there a reason why you've omitted my IdP-initiated login proposal
from your short list (also known as "bookmark login url discovery")?

If you're not convinced of the importance of privacy - read your own
IdP home page: http://pip.verisignlabs.com/

 " Verify your identity without compromising your privacy with PIP,
   the personal identity management system from VeriSign. "

Verisign chose Privacy as *the* most important and critical feature
that their IdP should support - does your PIP service plan to *use*
OpenID, and if so, how do you propose to handle privacy problems (eg:
RP's collaborating about users behind their backs) ?

Imposing an arbitrary time limit will result in an incomplete spec.

Kind Regards,
Chris Drake

Monday, October 16, 2006, 5:28:52 AM, you wrote:

RD> So previously I had set the goal of the final draft coming out last
RD> Friday, though we've missed that.  I'm resetting this bar to Wednesday
RD> which means we need to wrap up discussion on proposals where there is
RD> general consensus as well as accept that some proposals will not make it
RD> into this version.  For all proposals, unless there is general consensus
RD> they should be included by Tuesday evening they will not be included.

RD> * Request Nonce and Name
RD>  - Has been partially implemented, openid.nonce ->
RD> openid.response_nonce, no agreement on the need of a request nonce
RD> specifically, rather discussion has evolved into allowing a RP to pass
RD> "appdata" like in Yahoo's BBAuth.  No formal proposal on the table yet,
RD> thus will not be included in this version.

RD> * Authentication Age
RD>  - Re-proposed today adding clarity in motivation, general consensus is
RD> needed to add to specification.

RD> * Remove setup_url
RD>  - Little discussion and no general consensus to do so.  Rather seems
RD> asking for feedback from checkid_immediate implementers on the parameter
RD> would be beneficial at this time.

RD> * Consolidated Delegation Proposal
RD>  - Very active discussion, the only proposal I'm willing to stall the
RD> spec for.  Seems very important a strong conceptual model is created at
RD> this time.

RD> * Change Default session_type
RD>  - Proposed, no discussion yet.

RD> * Bare Request
RD>  - Proposed, no discussion yet.

RD> I also feel strongly that no new proposals, except to update existing
RD> ones, should be considered for inclusion in this version.

RD> --David
RD> _______________________________________________
RD> specs mailing list
RD> specs@openid.net
RD> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

specs mailing list

Reply via email to