[Openid-specs-ab] Please get me any feed back by Monday

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Sat Jun 5 17:38:29 UTC 2010


Hi Ryo,

In the spirit of OpenID.authentication-2.0, it should return the response
that is described in auth2.0's section 10.2.2.

Thus, it would return something like:

{
    "ns":"http://openid.net/specs/ab/1.0",
    "mode":"cancel"
}

Perhaps it is better to write it down.

Also, I feel that if the response can return more descriptive error
message,
it would be useful for developers. So, returning something like:

{
    "ns":"http://openid.net/specs/ab/1.0",
    "mode:"error",
    "error":"Invalid code"
}

might be better. What do you think?

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Ryo Ito <ritou.06 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi , Nat
>
> When RP included invalid code in "direct_assertion_req"(8.5),
> How does OP return the Negative Assertion(8.6)?
> Should OP describe that code is invalid in "mode" parameter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 2010/6/4 Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>:
> > Hi.
> > I got several feedback on Draft 9 off list. I incorporated them in Draft
> > 10.
> > If you have any feedback to the current draft10, please get it to me by
> > Monday.
> > I will try to incorporate them all. Once that is done, I will call it as
> the
> > final for the public review.
> > If there was no feedback, I take it as consent.
> > NEXT STEP: Public Review
> > According to my research(*1) , there are two options that we have right
> > now:
> > 1. Do it as Implementor's Draft (45 days)
> > 2. Do it as Final Draft (60 days)
> > I was originally planning to do it as 1., but we now seem to have Option
> 2.
> > as well.
> > There has never been a OpenID Spec that went through 1., so we might just
> as
> > well do 2.
> >
> > Please indicate your preference as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > (*1) Clarification from Mike Jones. PAPE spec was finalized skipping the
> > Implementor's draft. David R. stated opposition, but the vote went and it
> > was accepted, so I presume this interpretation
> > prevails.
> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-pape/2008-December/000491.html
> >
> > From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> > Date: December 22, 2008 11:51:07 AM PST
> > To: "david at sixapart.com" <david at sixapart.com>
> > Cc: "specs-pape at openid.net" <specs-pape at openid.net>, Paul Madsen
> > <paulmadsen at rogers.com>
> > Subject: RE: [specs-pape] Feedback on PAPE 1.0 Draft 7
> > Just as the passage you quoted says, working groups may recommend
> approval
> > of any of the three types of specs:  Implementer’s Draft, Final
> > Specification, or Errata.  It’s the working group’s choice whether to
> > release a draft as an implementer’s draft – explicitly planning for
> another
> > round of revision after implementation feedback, or a final draft,
> requiring
> > revision only if feedback during the 60 days (including from
> implementations
> > that occur during the 60 days).  This working group has produced a final
> > specification and recommended approval and the approval vote should
> commence
> > today.
> >
> > --
> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> > http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> > http://twitter.com/_nat_en
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> > Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ====================
> Ryo Ito
> Email : ritou.06 at gmail.com
> ====================
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20100606/38ee2e03/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list