-1 for these reasons: Complexity: There is no reason for the RP to be managing the binding between the IdP and the portable identifier. Both the IdP and the RP are verifying this. There is no extra security, and more things to go wrong in an implementation.
Privacy: There is no reason for the RP to know I am using a portable identifier instead of one managed directly by the IdP I'm not sure we are all on the same page on requirements, so I will write up a little summary about that and some conclusions. I know many of you wish this issue was over, but we do need to do this one right. -- Dick On 20-Oct-06, at 10:33 PM, Recordon, David wrote: > +1, though thinking we should define IdP-Specific Identifier and > Portable Identifier in the terminology section. > > Thanks for doing this! > > --David > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Josh Hoyt > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:31 PM > To: specs@openid.net > Subject: Portable Identifier Support Proposal (patch) > > As requested [1], I have made a patch to the specification [2] that > specifies the "two-identifier" mechanism for portable identifier > support. It's attached to this message. The net effect is adding one > line to the source XML file. > > I hope this proves useful in evaluating the proposal. > > Josh > > 1. http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2006-October/000478.html > 2. http://openid.net/svn/listing.php? > repname=specifications&rev=70&sc=1 > (openid.net specifications svn trunk, revision 70) > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs