Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

Since PAPE needs more integrity in the message (otherwise, the whole point of PAPE is lost), it would be ok to leave it just to OpenID 2.0 and make it an incentive to move to OpenID 2.0, IMHO. =nat Johnny Bufu wrote: > On 11/08/08 10:35 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: > >> In that referenced sectio

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

On 11/08/08 10:35 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: > In that referenced section it says: > > For the purposes of this document *and when constructing OpenID 1.1 > messages*, the extension namespace alias SHALL be "pape". > > (emphasis mine) > > I understand that to mean that when making a 1.1

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Net::OpenID::Consumer perl library as it currently stands will not > support PAPE in 1.1-mode messages since the openid.ns. mechanism > is only used in 2.0 mode. I'd like to change this to use the 2.0 scheme > in 1.1 (w

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

The preceding sentence goes: > The actual extension namespace alias should be determined on a > per-message basis by the party composing the messages, in such a > manner as to avoid conflicts between multiple extensions. Thus the intent of the > > For the purposes of this document and when

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

Nat Sakimura wrote: > Actially, that interpretation is not right. In draft 3, we have made it > clear. > Draft 3 now seems to say: For the purposes of this document and when constructing OpenID 1.1 and 2.0 messages, the extension namespace alias SHALL be "pape". Which now seems to re

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

Actially, that interpretation is not right. In draft 3, we have made it clear. [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2008/08/12, at 2:35, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Johnny Bufu wrote: >> >> >> On 11/08/08 12:49 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: >>> I notice that, like sreg, the pape extension is support

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

Johnny Bufu wrote: > > > On 11/08/08 12:49 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: >> I notice that, like sreg, the pape extension is supporting 1.1 by >> simply hard-coding the "pape" prefix on its arguments. > > Where/how? To my knowledge the opposite is true, per the last paragraph > here: > >

Re: Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

On 11/08/08 12:49 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: > I notice that, like sreg, the pape extension is supporting 1.1 by simply > hard-coding the "pape" prefix on its arguments. Where/how? To my knowledge the opposite is true, per the last paragraph here:

Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

I notice that, like sreg, the pape extension is supporting 1.1 by simply hard-coding the "pape" prefix on its arguments. This approach is troublesome for the Net::OpenID::Consumer perl library because it deals only in extension URIs, and supports sreg in 1.1 as a special case. In order to pres