"openid." name space of KeyValue Form

[Paul E. Jones]

Nat,

Understood.  The reasoning (I assume, since I didn't write the spec) is that
KVF is handed back in the body of the reply and/or processed locally (e.g.,
signature generation), whereas openid.* parameters are handed back via a
URL.  When sending parameters along with other parameters in the URL, having
something like an "openid" namespace makes sense so as to prevent name
collisions.

I assume the reason is nothing more than that distinction -- use the
namespace form when collisions are possible.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:20 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones
> Cc: openid-specs at lists.openid.net
> Subject: Re: "openid." name space of KeyValue Form
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> All the libraries that I know do not put openid. in KVF.
> The current spec is written like that and it is the correct behavior.
> 
> Until Hideki's message, it never occurred to me.
> 
> I suppose Hideki's is asking the reasoning that we made this asymmetry
> in the URL encoding and KVF.
> 
> =nat
> 
> (2010/02/07 21:22), Paul E. Jones wrote:
> > For use in Key-Value Form, I didn't see it as necessary when I
> implemented
> > the spec.  It seemed logical not the be there.
> >
> > The only reason why one might want to use this is to include some
> kind of
> > non-standard information.  Is that something folks would want to
> encourage?
> > Anyway, changing the spec to have "openid." there now would break
> things, so
> > I would not recommend it unless there was a really good reason.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-
> >> bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> >> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:14 AM
> >> To: openid-specs at lists.openid.net
> >> Subject: Re: "openid." name space of KeyValue Form
> >>
> >> Hmmm
> >>
> >> That's a good question. The reason we put openid.* in the request
> and
> >> response is that there may be other applications sharing the same
> >> request/response. If so, it would be more consistent if we put
> openid.*
> >> prefix to the keys of the direct response as well...
> >>
> >> Is it just an oversight, or did it have a good reason for it?
> >>
> >> =nat
> >>
> >> (2010/02/01 13:49), nara hideki wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking of the good reason why "openid." name space to keys of
> >>> Key-Value Form Encoding used for direct responses is dropped.
> >>> I think that we MAY use "openid." name space.
> >>>
> >>> I'm very happy if someone give me a good cue to understand the
> >>>
> >> reason.
> >>
> >>> Thanks in advance.
> >>> ----
> >>> hdknr
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> specs mailing list
> >>> specs at lists.openid.net
> >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
> >> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
> >> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> specs mailing list
> >> specs at lists.openid.net
> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>