On 9/27/06, Barry Ferg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This proposal doesn't _force_ anyone to us multiple > parameters with the same name. I'm in favour of keeping the > specification flexible by not imposing unnecessary restrictions on > future extensions to the protocol.
Why require the integers in the Diffie-Hellman exchange to be encoded as big-endian two's complement instead of allowing multiple different integer encodings? Why specify that the text is encoded as UTF-8 instead of allowing arbitrary encodings? Why bind it to the HTTP protocol? These decisions were made to make it easy to implement without reducing functionality for the cases that the protocol was designed to cover. Ease of implementation is a design goal for this protocol. If one alternative would make implementation harder for a significant part of the target audience and another would not, the choice is clear to me. Josh _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
