Attribute Exchange pre-draft 5

Johnny Bufu johnny at sxip.com
Tue Apr 3 03:41:47 UTC 2007


On 2-Apr-07, at 12:10 PM, Josh Hoyt wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Johnny Bufu <johnny at sxip.com> wrote:
>> - Added ax.mode parameters to all messages, to unambiguously identify
>> the message types; the values are:
>>         fetch_request
>>         fetch_response
>>         store_request
>>         store_response_success
>>         store_response_failure
>> This allows implementers to decouple the processing of the underlying
>> OpenID Auth message and the extension layer.
>
> What about using a different namespace URI for each message?
>
> I was thinking:
>  http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0#fetch_request
>  http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0#fetch_response
>  http://openid.net/srv/ax/1.0#store_request
>  ...
>
> That eliminates the need for an extra parameter, but makes the auth
> message processing unambiguous. It's also clear to human readers that
> those namespaces are related, since they are in the same document.

The need for a mode param came when, during implementation, having  
decoupled the openid auth message and the extension processing, we  
couldn't distinguish between a fetch response and a store request. So  
the identification bits would be most useful as a message field from  
this point of view.

Other arguments for the original proposal:
- is more inline with the core openid spec
- the extension section in the core spec seems to define the  
extension type URI as the identifier for an extension protocol,  
rather than individual messages within the protocol
- having multiple URIs could lead to confusion as to what OPs should  
put in XRDS files.

Unless there are strong opinions in favor of multiple URIs, I think  
we should go forward with the mode fields.

Johnny




More information about the specs mailing list