Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

sakimura at gmail.com sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Aug 13 01:35:41 UTC 2008


The preceding sentence goes:

> The actual extension namespace alias should be determined on a
> per-message basis by the party composing the messages, in such a
> manner as to avoid conflicts between multiple extensions.

Thus the intent of the

>
>      For the purposes of this document and when constructing OpenID 1.1
>      and 2.0 messages, the extension namespace alias SHALL be "pape".
>

is that, "pape" in this document and the actual messages should be
treated as a placeholder, which should be replaced message by message.

Having said that, I agree that this is very misleading. I read it
exactly as you did in the first path, so did Mike Jones. It was only
after I have read the spec in full, that if it were not placeholder,
it would not make sense as a coherent spec. I suppose we should fix
the sentence as well. (Note: in draft 3, we have replaced all
appearance of "pape" with "<pape>" to signify that it is a template.

As to the backporting: if we do backport, it would not be 1.1 anymore, I guess.
Perhaps you can just support 2.0 and that will accelerate the shift to
version 2.0.

=nat

On 8/13/08, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk> wrote:
> Nat Sakimura wrote:
>> Actially, that interpretation is not right. In draft 3, we have made it
>> clear.
>>
>
> Draft 3 now seems to say:
>
>      For the purposes of this document and when constructing OpenID 1.1
>      and 2.0 messages, the extension namespace alias SHALL be "pape".
>
> Which now seems to require that "pape" must always be the namespace
> alias, in both 1.1 and 2.0. I don't understand what the intention of
> this sentence is if this is not a correct interpretation.
>
>
> However, my original message was not really a comment on the PAPE spec
> so much as a comment on the general lack of an extensibility mechanism
> in OpenID 1.1. The PAPE spec (the sentence I quoted above
> notwithstanding) currently seems to assume that the 2.0 namespace
> mechanism is available in 1.1, but as far as I'm aware there has never
> been a published specification allowing this. (please correct me if I'm
> wrong.)
>
> The Net::OpenID::Consumer perl library as it currently stands will not
> support PAPE in 1.1-mode messages since the openid.ns.<alias> mechanism
> is only used in 2.0 mode. I'd like to change this to use the 2.0 scheme
> in 1.1 (with a special case for sreg) but I'm only comfortable doing
> that if there's a specification (or errata) that explicitly allows it.
>
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/



More information about the specs mailing list