On 3/3/07, Dmitry Shechtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I own markbaker.ca., and publish http URIs in that namespace. I might
> > (I don't) also have email addresses there, say [EMAIL PROTECTED] If
> > a public standard were crafted which defined a mapping for
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to s
> I own markbaker.ca., and publish http URIs in that namespace. I might
> (I don't) also have email addresses there, say [EMAIL PROTECTED] If
> a public standard were crafted which defined a mapping for
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to something under http://markbaker.ca (say,
> http://markbaker.ca/
chob
> Cc: specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery
>
> On 3/2/07, Gabe Wachob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Mark-
> > I think I understand your first point. I think FTP is a
> degenerate
> > case though, because it
--
Best regards,
Gavin Baumanis
T: +61 -3 992 51099
F: +61 -3 992 52706
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Property Services
RMIT University
Level 6, 449 Swanston Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Australia
>>> On Saturday, March 03, 2007 at 17:26, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark
Baker"
<[EMAIL PROTE
On 3/2/07, Gabe Wachob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mark-
> I think I understand your first point. I think FTP is a degenerate
> case though, because its just like HTTP in the sense that there's basically
> one way that everybody knows how to use an FTP URI to get at a *document*
> (e.g.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Johannes Ernst
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:47 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: Re: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery
While I'm strongly in favor of modularization from an architectural
perspectiv
While I'm strongly in favor of modularization from an architectural
perspective, is there a potential security problem here if multiple
protocols are developed to resolve the same kind of identifier?
(because they could resolve to a different set of endpoints / services)
It appears to me th
50 AM
> To: Gabe Wachob
> Cc: Drummond Reed; Martin Atkins; specs@openid.net
> Subject: Re: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Discovery
>
> Hi Gabe,
>
> On 2/28/07, Gabe Wachob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Basically, the Discovery Spec would specify that for an
Hi Gabe,
On 2/28/07, Gabe Wachob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, the Discovery Spec would specify that for any identifier scheme
> to work with OpenID, it MUST define a way of being constructed into an HTTP
> URI and then returning a XRDS with an HTTP GET on that HTTP URI.
I don't underst
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Gabe Wachob
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: 'Drummond Reed'; 'Martin Atkins'; specs@openid.net
> Subject: Proposal for Modularizing Auth 2.0 Disc
Gabe Wachob wrote:
>
> Basically, the Discovery Spec would specify that for any identifier scheme
> to work with OpenID, it MUST define a way of being constructed into an HTTP
> URI and then returning a XRDS with an HTTP GET on that HTTP URI. If there
> are other ways of resolving it, then impleme
I'd agree on specifying HTTP as the only resolution method required.
Unfortunately, I have a conflict of interests with the SMTP service
extension...
Regards,
Dmitry
=damnian
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/sp
+1. Provides a nice HTTP(S) "backbone" for OpenID Discovery.
=Drummond
-Original Message-
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:02 PM
To: 'Drummond Reed'; 'Martin Atkins'; specs@openid.net
Subject: Proposal for M
I'm trying to follow this while at ETEL - not all of us can keep up with
this list on a minute-by-minute basis ;-)
Here's a proposal for a modular OpenID Discovery Spec, which I'll volunteer
to help edit since I am responsible for the XRI resolution spec and the XRDS
document format.
Basically,
14 matches
Mail list logo
