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
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
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
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
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