On 3-Jun-07, at 2:14 AM, Recordon, David wrote:

>> Overall, I'm not sure we are ready in this community to pick one
>> alternative over another as "the standards". I have my views,
>> (many) others have (many) others -- and I don't think that any
>> of this has to be in an Authentication 1.x (x>1) or 2.0 spec,
>> whatever it will be. This seems like a clean add-on.
> I also agree with Johannes here.  I'd like to see this written as an
> extension so that if the first approach doesn't work, the Auth spec
> itself doesn't have to be "reverted.  Rather we can finish 2.0 and try
> implementing different approaches before deciding on the final way to
> solve this problem.

I don't see how we can solve this problem as an extension as we need  
the RP to know that a memorable identifier has some extra info that  
makes it unique when reused. This is core to OpenID.

-- Dick
specs mailing list

Reply via email to