Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

[Nat Sakimura]

Since PAPE needs more integrity in the message (otherwise, the whole 
point of PAPE is lost), it would be ok to leave it just to OpenID 2.0 
and make it an incentive to move to OpenID 2.0, IMHO.

=nat

Johnny Bufu wrote:
> On 11/08/08 10:35 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>   
>> In that referenced section it says:
>>
>>      For the purposes of this document *and when constructing OpenID 1.1
>>      messages*, the extension namespace alias SHALL be "pape".
>>
>> (emphasis mine)
>>
>> I understand that to mean that when making a 1.1 request the alias must 
>> be "pape".
>>     
>
> You're right - my brain must have left out the portion you emphasized,
> since it didn't use to be there.
>
> I thought PAPE was not meant to be compatible with 1.1, exactly for the
> reasons you outlined in the initial message.
>
> Not sure what the best approach would be here: specify how PAPE could be
> used with OpenID 1.1, or leave it as an incentive to upgrade to 2.0.
>
> Johnny
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>