[OpenID] Calling OpenID 2.0 editors (was RE:ProblemswithOpenID and TAG httpRange-14)

[Brendan Taylor]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:30:42PM -0800, Peter Williams wrote:
>    What I don't want is the HTTP's notion of link control (by providers)
>    to have any impact on the provisioning status of openids - in the eyes
>    of consumers.  If consumer=plaxo has linked my openid to a plaxo
>    account, we don't want plaxo to believe they have to now unlink me
>    because of a 301!

Why would they have to?

>                       That a 301/302/303 may influence the current login
>    session's state machine uniquely... is ok (ie. I don't care, given the
>    whole model is UCI anyways). If the result is I am unable to
>    auto-assert my Plax account linking on arrival at Plaxo because of
>    those HTTP signals, so be it. Plaxo will have to allow to enable me to
>    rebind my latest openid, or allow n openids to link to 1 plaxo account
>    (good luck, plaxo!)

As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with anything that's been
discussed in this thread.

Peter, I don't understand what your concern is. Not to offend, but I
find the content of your emails difficult to follow. Can you state
your objection clearly and succinctly?

To be clear myself, below is the change to OpenID's URL normalization
algorithm that is being suggested. Lines marked with * are the only
changes from the existing algorithm.

    url = url_the_user_entered
    response = GET(url)
    claimed_id = nil

    while is_redirect(response):
*     if (response.status == 303 and !claimed_id):
*       claimed_id = url

      url = response['Location']
      response = GET(url)

*   if !claimed_id:
      claimed_id = url

    do_discovery(response)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20080307/5c5fcc4b/attachment-0002.pgp>