+1
Glad to see that we have settled on one identifier parameter
On 23-Oct-06, at 7:07 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
> Here's another way to summarize the conclusions David and I reached
> in our
> analysis today:
>
> 1) In OpenID Authentication 1.1, if there is a difference between the
> identifier
Here's another way to summarize the conclusions David and I reached in our
analysis today:
1) In OpenID Authentication 1.1, if there is a difference between the
identifier the user wants to assert to an RP and the identifier the IdP
wants to assert for the user (lets just call them ID1 and ID2), t
So been going through all of this up in Seattle with Drummond and think
I fully have my head around this.
Thinking we have the following cases, which Draft 10 basically already
addresses. In any of the responses, the IdP MAY return a differing
value for "openid.identity" than the RP requested. T
No, that is the work-arroundThe solution is
to have the email client assign fonts according to who
is writing.
Messages from Lord
Rees-Mogg are written in an elegant Edwardian Copperplate.
Paris Hilton uses
BroadwayComments from Dick come in this
font
Sounds right to
me.
> -Original
On 23-Oct-06, at 12:27 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> Dick Hardt wrote:
>>
>> Complexity: There is no reason for the RP to be managing the binding
>> between the IdP and the portable identifier. Both the IdP and the RP
>> are verifying this. There is no extra security, and more things to go
>> wrong
Dick Hardt wrote:
>
> Complexity: There is no reason for the RP to be managing the binding
> between the IdP and the portable identifier. Both the IdP and the RP
> are verifying this. There is no extra security, and more things to go
> wrong in an implementation.
>
You keep stating that bo
