[OpenID] is openid 2.0 a lightweight identity system?
robyates70 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 12 16:33:43 UTC 2007
On 2/10/07, Simon Willison <simon at simonwillison.net> wrote:
> I'm still not entirely clear on the benefits of i-names as part of
> OpenID 2.0. Is the only reason to use an i-name that you get an
> i-number, which guards against losing out should you fail to
> re-register it?
Agreed, this is the one thing that I am still not clear on. I now buy
I understand the argument as to why i-names are a good thing, so fine,
let them prosper and if they gain wide adoption then an extension to
openid can support them. It just seems strange to me to demand
support in the core. Although in another thread...
On 2/9/07, Dick Hardt <dick at sxip.com> wrote:
> Hi Bruce
> Yes, an OP does not need to support i-names. If you are not an i-broker
> (right term), then you can't support them easily.
> An RP SHOULD support i-names.
> -- Dick
Which implies to me that support for i-names is optional. I can't
seem to find this in the spec though, could one of the spec authors
clarify this and point me to the appropriate paragraph in the spec.
More information about the general