[Openid-specs-ab] Question on Core vs AB

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 01:06:36 UTC 2011

Hi Chuck,

The core is just an abstract spec, akin to abstract class in object oriented
It does not define Bindings in it nor it requires Request File etc.
One has to define a binding first. Artifact Binding is one such binding, but
there is going to be
User-Agent Flow Binding etc. as well. It just has not been written, partly
due to we have gone into
session management discussion before doing another binding. Actually,
writing a binding is
quite simple so we are tackling with harder problems right now.

As to the binding, we are writing User-Agent Flow binding, Artifact Binding,
and Web Server Flow binding probably.
If you have anything else in mind, please suggest it.


On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Chuck Mortimore
<cmortimore at salesforce.com>wrote:

>  Question on this line in the Connect Core Spec:
> This specification only defines the abstract messsage flow and message
> formats. The actual use MUST base on one of the companion protocol bindings
> specifications such as *OpenID Connect Artifact Binding 1.0 <#OpenID.AB> * [OpenID.AB]
> .
> It strikes me as Artifact Binding should be an optional way to use connect,
> and that for many applications constructing an addressable Authorization
> Request file is either difficult or un-necessary.   CC provides for direct
> query param serialization of the request.   Why prevent CC from being used
> directly?
> Thanks
> -cmort
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110323/0b50180c/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list