Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG

Nat sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Feb 4 00:50:38 UTC 2009


CX does not and cannot carry information from multiple users.

The information model deals exclusively around a single subject.

=nat at TOKYO via iPhone

On 2009/02/04, at 7:50, Dick Hardt <Dick.Hardt at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback Breno!
>
>
>
> Nat: can you provide some illumination? I see that CX would define  
> attribute types to be carried in AX. I’m confused about the scenario 
>  where information from multiple users would be transmitted as that  
> implies that the protocol no longer is dealing with a single subject.
>
>
>
> -Dick
>
>
>
> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno at google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:39 PM
> To: Dick Hardt
> Cc: david at sixapart.com; Allen Tom; Martin Atkins; Nat Sakimura;  
> OpenID Specs Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt  
> <Dick.Hardt at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it  
> being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add  
> language directing people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion  
> either way? (SREG included in this WG or in a different one?)
>
>
> I'm ok either way.
>
>
>
> 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of  
> attributes about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very  
> different design pattern then what AX does now. I have not seen the  
> background on why this is in scope, so perhaps I can have a  
> different view if someone cares to enlighten me.
>
>
> When Nat Sakimura wrote the contract exchange CX proposal, he  
> included scope for exchanging validation/metadata about attributes,  
> and it was felt that it should belong here. CX also needs this bulk  
> exchange functionality and again because it pertained to attributes,  
> it was believed that it would better fit here.
>
> The advantage of keeping it in this WG is that we make sure that  
> different approaches to handling exchange of user attributes are  
> viewed by the same people, even if it ends up in a separate mini-spec.
>
> The counter-argument is that most members of this WG are not  
> interested primarily in this functionality, and it may distract both  
> efforts (CX and AX), and that AX is unlikely to directly support  
> anything along these lines.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Dick
>
> PS: please use my microsoft.com address for any specs discussions.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> --Breno
>
> +1 (650) 214-1007 desk
> +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
> MTV-41-3 : 383-A
> PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20090204/708b8cd6/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the specs mailing list