Comments on Auth 2.0 - Pre-Draft 11

[Johannes Ernst]

And I had responded:

In which case, I will "attempt" to be satisfied ;-)


On Dec 14, 2006, at 16:35, Josh Hoyt wrote:

> Oops, forgot to copy the list...
>
> On 12/14/06, Josh Hoyt <josh at janrain.com> wrote:
>> On 12/11/06, Johannes Ernst <jernst+openid.net at netmesh.us> wrote:
>> > >> 9.1. Request Parameters
>> ...
>> > >>>     Note: If an OP-SPecific Identifier is not supplied, the
>> > >>> Claimed Identifier is considered to have the same as the OP-
>> > >>> Specific Identifier. If neither value is present, the assertion
>> > >>> is not about an identifier, and will contain other  
>> information in
>> > >>> its payload, using extensions (Extensions).
>> > >
>> > > This doesn't seem right; I read your text like this:
>> > >
>> > >> "If an OP-Specific Identifier is not supplied"
>> > > and therefore openid.identity = "http://openid.net/
>> > > identifier_select/2.0"
>> > >> "the Claimed Identifier is considered to have the same as the  
>> OP-
>> > >> Specific Identifier."
>> > > openid.claimed_id = "http://openid.net/identifier_select/2.0"
>> > >
>> > > Which is fine, but doesn't cover the remaining cases, i.e. when
>> > > Claimed Identifiers / OP-Specific Identifiers *are* supplied.
>> > >
>> > > The original / current wording does cover these cases, albeit I
>> > > admit it is not very easy to read.
>> >
>> > So I modify my request to modify the wording in a way that it is
>> > easier to read.
>>
>> Attempted.
>>
>> See http://openid.net/svn/listing.php?repname=specifications&path=% 
>> 2F&rev=201&sc=1
>> and http://openid.net/svn/listing.php?repname=specifications&path=% 
>> 2F&rev=209&sc=1
>>
>> Josh