On 2-Apr-07, at 2:08 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote: > On 4/2/07, Johnny Bufu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry - I may be missing something, but I still say the problem >> remains: if a SREG1.1 party builds a message with a namespace alias >> different than "sreg", it can confuse the other party which may be >> expecting specifically "sreg". >> >> Or, put it differently, identifying SREG1.1 with the same URI as >> SREG1.0 would require all RPs and OPs out there to add the namespace >> alias param to their messages, since it is required in OpenID2/ >> SREG1.1 (and that's what the URI also means). > > OpenID 2 messages would use the namespace URI and OpenID 1 messages > would use the "sreg" prefix. If you do both, all the time, you don't > have to care which kind of message it is, but I'm not proposing that > we require doing that.
I agree there is no issue if all parties implement both SREG1.0 and SREG1.1. > If you are making a SREG request, you won't have to care whether it's > supposed to be 1.0 or 1.1 because they're *the same*. But they are not the same -- the namespace alias can be different than "sreg". Are you suggesting that SREG1.1 must always use the "sreg" namespace alias? > You only have to care whether it's an OpenID 1 or OpenID 2 request > so that you can make > sure that the other end understands the namespacing. Being OpenID2 and understanding namespacing doesn't imply that the party also supports SREG1.1. It may only support SREG1.0, hence only accept "sreg" in the place of the namespace alias. Johnny _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
