On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in > if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing > people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included > in this WG or in a different one?) I'm ok either way. > > > 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of attributes > about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very different design pattern > then what AX does now. I have not seen the background on why this is in > scope, so perhaps I can have a different view if someone cares to enlighten > me. When Nat Sakimura wrote the contract exchange CX proposal, he included scope for exchanging validation/metadata about attributes, and it was felt that it should belong here. CX also needs this bulk exchange functionality and again because it pertained to attributes, it was believed that it would better fit here. The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that different approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are viewed by the same people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec. The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not interested primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both efforts (CX and AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support anything along these lines. > > > -- Dick > > PS: please use my microsoft.com address for any specs discussions. > > -- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
