[Openid-specs-ab] Reserved member definitions
roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se
Thu Sep 22 06:50:04 UTC 2011
21 sep 2011 kl. 21:59 skrev John Bradley:
> there is no namespace support in JSON.
> Each claim request and response needs to be a URI containing the poco namespace.
> For the aggregated claim example in Messages 126.96.36.199 we should change the examples to be URI . the short names are confusing and meaningless.
This has been shown time after time, so I firmly believe that short names should be avoided at all cost.
Unless it's very clear from the context which namespace they belong to.
> 188.8.131.52.1 should also be using URI for the claim request.
> My point being that claim names MUST be unambiguous. Given that aggregated claims may come from multiple sources.
> So that would be the short reserved names, or URI if we want interoperability. Aggregated claims MUST use URI.
> That is my take on it. We should fix the examples and make it clearer.
I'm totally in agreement with John on this.
> We currently have schema in 3.3.1 for the request. Given the current spec if you passed in http://portablecontacts.net/ns/1.0 you might expect to get back the basic profile in portable contacts schema. That was intended for backwards compatibility with existing endpoints rather than messing with the response. I don't know if it is more trouble than it is worth.
As an implementer of the specs I don't think so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Openid-specs-ab