[Openid-specs-ab] Should we put self-issued into the Messages or should we create a separate document?
jricher at mitre.org
Fri May 18 16:19:12 UTC 2012
> Responding to Justin's point about static infrastructure, I believe
> that the way we're going to specify it will require no static
> infrastructure. Actually, it make is the protocol **more**
> distributed, as it removes the dependence upon third party IdPs.
Doesn't it require selfissued.me to be there to answer for all of these
self-issued pocket IdPs in terms of discovery? That's the functionality
that I understood from the meeting at Yahoo.
openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
[mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Justin
> *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2012 8:17 AM
> *To:* openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Should we put self-issued into the
> Messages or should we create a separate document?
> In my opinion, it's too much of a bolt-on bit of functionality to add
> it to the core spec. It also presumes a few pieces of static
> infrastructure to be in place in order to function, and I'm not
> comfortable with a distributed protocol doing that in the first place.
> -- Justin
> On 05/17/2012 05:29 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> We have self-issued OP documented at
> We have built the code that works.
> We decided not to create Userinfo token, but decided to include them
> in the id_token.
> Registration overlay still have not reached the consensus.
> Having said that, we should now consider where we are going to put
> these in.
> In Messages?
> Or a separate spec?
> Please discuss.
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-ab