[PROPOSAL] Separate Public Identifier from IdP Identifier

[Drummond Reed]

+1 to Kevin's point here -- no second discovery step is needed with an XRI.

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
Of Kevin Turner
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:58 PM
To: specs at openid.net
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Separate Public Identifier from IdP Identifier

>From http://www.lifewiki.net/openid/SeparateIdentifierFromIdPToken
(change #3):
> Impact on XRI-based auth:
> 
> An XRI is, for this purpose, a URI that can be resolved into a URL at
> which we can do Yadis discovery. Once Yadis discovery begins, flow
> continues as in the original proposal, where openid:Token can be any
> URI.

It's unclear to me whether you intended this to be a change from the
current specification or not, but it is.  Yadis discovery on URLs
resolved from XRIs is considered redundant, as there's nothing about
Yadis discovery that can't be done while resolving the XRI.  Since Yadis
uses the XRI resolution response format, you even get to use the same
code.

So was it your intention to add an extra layer to discovery here, or
should the above section be reworded?


_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs