Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form Discovery Working Group)

But I suppose it is worthwhile to make the spec clearler. It can be clearer by decomposeing the notion of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service than collectively calling it as "OP". That will facilitate a better understanding of the strength and weakness of the protocol as well. =na

CLARIFICATION: Is OpenID Discovery Optional?

All, Wondering if anybody, especially the original OIDF Board and any contributor's to the OpenID Auth 2.0 spec could comment on this question for me. *Is OpenID Discovery, as seen in section 7.3 of the Auth spec, optional? More specifically, is the information returned by discovery meant to be A

Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form Discovery Working Group)

Splitting the specification will also make it easier to understand the changes between Yadis-based and XRD-based discovery, since the authN part of the spec is unlikely to change as much. I am in favor of separating the two specifications and create a 2.0-compatible (with language clean-up) versio

OpenID Authentication 2.0 Errata

Hi folks, It seems that we don't currently have any central place to document the issues with OpenID Authentication 2.0, so I started a wiki page for it: http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID-Authentication-2_0-Errata Currently it only has one issue, which is the one that I encountered today that i

Re: CLARIFICATION: Is OpenID Discovery Optional?

2009/1/7 David Fuelling : > All, > > Wondering if anybody, especially the original OIDF Board and any > contributor's to the OpenID Auth 2.0 spec could comment on this question for > me. > > Is OpenID Discovery, as seen in section 7.3 of the Auth spec, optional? > More specifically, is the informat