Agreed that it makes sense to split it out when the underlying work (XRD 1.0) is ready.
=Drummond _____ From: David Recordon [mailto:drecor...@sixapart.com] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:24 PM To: Drummond Reed Cc: sappe...@gmail.com; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley'; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form Discovery Working Group) I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out before we make changes to how OpenID discovery works. I'd much rather make this sort of change once rather than twice. --David On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: I'm just catching up on holiday mail and wanted to add another +1 to separation of Discovery from AuthN. The sooner the better. =Drummond _____ From: specs-boun...@openid.net [mailto:specs-boun...@openid.net] On Behalf Of David Fuelling Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 8:47 AM To: Nat Sakimura Cc: John Bradley; specs@openid.net Subject: Re: Proposal to form Discovery Working Group On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakim...@nri.co.jp> wrote: 2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service. In the current terminology, OP spans both Discovery Service and Authentication Service. We should be explicit about it. +1. I would like to see discovery services separated from OP services too. John Bradley wrote: > Breno, > > I agree. I recommended separating discovery into a separate doc for > 2.1. > > There didn't seem to be support for the idea at the time, perhaps > circumstances have changed and the idea will be accepted now. > > Regards > John Bradley > =jbradley _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs