Sorry it took me a few days, but seems alright to me. I think a larger question would be if there should be any material differences with SREG 1.1 such as adding a few additional common fields.
-David On Oct 26, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Johnny Bufu wrote: > David, Josh, > > Reviving an old thread here... > > On 2-Apr-07, at 5:06 PM, Johnny Bufu wrote: > >> After a chat with Josh, we settled our dispute by agreeing on the >> following: >> >> On 2-Apr-07, at 2:44 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote: >>> I think it would be reasonable to always use "sreg", if for no other >>> reason than for clarity, but re-using the Type URI as the namespace >>> alias instead of creating a new one does not imply that the alias >>> must >>> be "sreg" when using OpenID 2. >>> >>> What if I put my proposal this way: >>> >>> If Simple Registration is used with OpenID 1, the arguments MUST be >>> prefixed with "openid.sreg." If Simple Registration is used with >>> OpenID 2, the arguments MUST be in the namespace >>> "http://openid.net/sreg/1.0"; >> >> The first bit allows a implementation of SREG1.1/OpenID2 to be >> seamlessly used in "compatibility mode" with OpenID1 messages, which >> (together with the last two items in the proposal) would eliminate >> the conflicts I was pointing out. > > Can the latest draft of SREG1.1 please be updated as per above? > > This is causing two issues at this time: > > - OpenID4Java libraries (and Sxip deployments) were implemented as > per above (and the according design), assuming the update to the > spec would be done in the near future; > JanRain libraries however still use the published "http://openid.net/sreg/1.1 > " URI for SREG1.1. This leads to interop issues between the two. > > - In the recently publish OP comparison chart, Sxipper appears as > not supporting SREG1.1 (and for good reason from the point of view > of Will's scripts and published specs). > > > Thanks, > Johnny > > _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
