Delegation discussion summary

[Recordon, David]

+1


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net]
Sent:	Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:	'Josh Hoyt'; 'Marius Scurtescu'
Cc:	specs at openid.net
Subject:	RE: Delegation discussion summary

+1 to Josh's point. IMHO identifier portability is "sacred". If anyone
disagrees, please post, can we assume we have consensus on this?

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
Of Josh Hoyt
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM
To: Marius Scurtescu
Cc: specs at openid.net
Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary

On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <marius at sxip.com> wrote:
> The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka
> delegated identifiers) at all IMO.

If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported for using a
portable identifier, all IdPs will support it, so identifiers will
actually be portable. You'd have a very difficult time trying to get
people here to remove portable identifier support from the OpenID
protocol.

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20061013/015d2d5a/attachment-0002.htm>