On 21/02/2008, Enis Soztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>  As far as I understand, the distinction between sreg.required and
>  sreg.optional is entirely in the responsibility of the consumer and
>  there is not reason for the protocol to include this arbitrary division.
>  An OP implementation will just merge the two fields and try to fill them
>  as much as it can.

It is a hint from the RP about which pieces of user information it
requires.  The OP may choose to use that info when asking the user for
authorisation to send the data.

Of course, the RP needs to handle the case where it doesn't receive
some user details it asked for, possibly by getting the user to fill
them in when they return from their OP.

>  I propose we merge this two fields for version 1.1. This will introduce
>  another backwards compatibility rule, but I think this design will be
>  better.

Introducing new features to the SREG extension seems a bit
questionable.  If you want to do things that SREG doesn't handle,
you'd be better off looking at the attribute exchange extension.

specs mailing list

Reply via email to