Hi Ryo, <div><br></div><div>In the spirit of OpenID.authentication-2.0, it should return the response that is described in auth2.0's section 10.2.2. </div><div><br></div><div>Thus, it would return something like: </div>
<div><br></div><div>{</div><div> "ns":"<a href="http://openid.net/specs/ab/1.0">http://openid.net/specs/ab/1.0</a>",</div><div> "mode":"cancel"</div><div>}</div><div><br></div>
<div>Perhaps it is better to write it down. </div><div><br></div><div>Also, I feel that if the response can return more descriptive error message, </div><div>it would be useful for developers. So, returning something like: </div>
<div><br></div><div>{</div><div> "ns":"<a href="http://openid.net/specs/ab/1.0">http://openid.net/specs/ab/1.0</a>",</div><div> "mode:"error",</div><div> "error":"Invalid code"</div>
<div>}</div><div><br></div><div>might be better. What do you think? <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Ryo Ito <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ritou.06@gmail.com">ritou.06@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi , Nat<br>
<br>
When RP included invalid code in "direct_assertion_req"(8.5),<br>
How does OP return the Negative Assertion(8.6)?<br>
Should OP describe that code is invalid in "mode" parameter?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
2010/6/4 Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> Hi.<br>
> I got several feedback on Draft 9 off list. I incorporated them in Draft<br>
> 10.<br>
> If you have any feedback to the current draft10, please get it to me by<br>
> Monday.<br>
> I will try to incorporate them all. Once that is done, I will call it as the<br>
> final for the public review.<br>
> If there was no feedback, I take it as consent.<br>
> NEXT STEP: Public Review<br>
> According to my research(*1) , there are two options that we have right<br>
> now:<br>
> 1. Do it as Implementor's Draft (45 days)<br>
> 2. Do it as Final Draft (60 days)<br>
> I was originally planning to do it as 1., but we now seem to have Option 2.<br>
> as well.<br>
> There has never been a OpenID Spec that went through 1., so we might just as<br>
> well do 2.<br>
><br>
> Please indicate your preference as well.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> (*1) Clarification from Mike Jones. PAPE spec was finalized skipping the<br>
> Implementor's draft. David R. stated opposition, but the vote went and it<br>
> was accepted, so I presume this interpretation<br>
> prevails. <a href="http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-pape/2008-December/000491.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-pape/2008-December/000491.html</a><br>
><br>
> From: Mike Jones <<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>><br>
> Date: December 22, 2008 11:51:07 AM PST<br>
> To: "<a href="mailto:david@sixapart.com">david@sixapart.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:david@sixapart.com">david@sixapart.com</a>><br>
> Cc: "<a href="mailto:specs-pape@openid.net">specs-pape@openid.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:specs-pape@openid.net">specs-pape@openid.net</a>>, Paul Madsen<br>
> <<a href="mailto:paulmadsen@rogers.com">paulmadsen@rogers.com</a>><br>
> Subject: RE: [specs-pape] Feedback on PAPE 1.0 Draft 7<br>
> Just as the passage you quoted says, working groups may recommend approval<br>
> of any of the three types of specs: Implementer’s Draft, Final<br>
> Specification, or Errata. It’s the working group’s choice whether to<br>
> release a draft as an implementer’s draft – explicitly planning for another<br>
> round of revision after implementation feedback, or a final draft, requiring<br>
> revision only if feedback during the 60 days (including from implementations<br>
> that occur during the 60 days). This working group has produced a final<br>
> specification and recommended approval and the approval vote should commence<br>
> today.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
> <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
> <a href="http://twitter.com/_nat_en" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/_nat_en</a><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
====================<br>
Ryo Ito<br>
Email : <a href="mailto:ritou.06@gmail.com">ritou.06@gmail.com</a><br>
====================<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br><a href="http://twitter.com/_nat_en">http://twitter.com/_nat_en</a><br>
</div>