I am in full agreement. Indeed, the proposed charter for the WG has always
indicated that the deliverable would be a guidance document, not a separate
spec.
It should be up to the 2.1 authentication WG to later decide if the guidance
document should be published as a separate spec, or if instead i
Hey Breno,
I think this is a good point and judging from this thread already,
there seems to be a group of people really interested in working on
discovery for OpenID. If we can frame the working group in the right
way (David Fuelling framed it well as "I guess I'm more of the opinion
tha
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:19 PM, SitG Admin
wrote:
> There's a significant camp of people that believe this information should
>> be included in DNS. There's also a significant group of people who believe
>> it could be located an XRD file (or, "on the web").
>>
>
> What if the discovery document
Great feedback. I took the liberty to add this to the "Discussion Points"
on the wiki page.
http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID-Discovery
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
> My primary concern with changing OpenID Discovery is the upgrade path to
> the new discovery mechanism. It took
My bad -- I errantly thought you were advocating the opposite.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
> And I agree with you. My view is that in the absence of an OpenID discovery
> WG there will be _more_ uncertainty about future directions for the spec,
> not less.
>
>
__
There's a significant camp of people that believe this information
should be included in DNS. There's also a significant group of
people who believe it could be located an XRD file (or, "on the
web").
What if the discovery document says "E-mail this autoresponder address."?
Should all discov
And I agree with you. My view is that in the absence of an OpenID discovery
WG there will be _more_ uncertainty about future directions for the spec,
not less.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM, David Fuelling wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
>
>> If we start the pr
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
> If we start the process to form a WG for discovery now, most likely the
> process would only be completed in 6 months, even if there was considerable
> agreement and stable technologies to draw from.
>
> Right now, there is quite a bit of
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>
> We need to remember that XRD only addreses discovery for URL identifiers.
This is not really true. The XRD document schema only demands that an
identifier be a URI, both for the XRD document's "subject" (i.e., the
canonical-id) and the X
David,
Great questions -- see my thoughts/opinions inline...
david
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:36 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> Hey David,I've been following some of the discovery work the past few
> months, but don't have a clear picture if the various components are
> actually solid enough to beg
My primary concern with changing OpenID Discovery is the upgrade path to
the new discovery mechanism. It took way too long for everyone to
upgrade to OpenID 2.0, so I'd like to have a better understanding the
upgrade path to OpenID 2.1 and/or the new Discovery mechanism.
Allen
David Recordon
If we start the process to form a WG for discovery now, most likely the
process would only be completed in 6 months, even if there was considerable
agreement and stable technologies to draw from.
Right now, there is quite a bit of momentum and excitement about Webfinger.
The XRI TC is hoping to pu
We need to remember that XRD only addreses discovery for URL identifiers. XRD
does not address email like identifiers. XRD actually has two properties.
1) generic format for resource descriptor documents (XRD documents)
2) protocol for obtaining XRD documents from HTTP(S) URIs.
For email identifie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you are interested in defining a SASL mechanism for OpenID, please
let me know. I might want to work on such a beast. :)
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using
Hey David,
I've been following some of the discovery work the past few months,
but don't have a clear picture if the various components are actually
solid enough to begin working with. I know XRD is moving forward, but
what's the state of site-meta (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingh
15 matches
Mail list logo
