[Openid-specs-ab] Versions published incorporating edits decided upon during 30-Jun-11 spec call

[Nat Sakimura]

Sounds good.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 22:14, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Breno,
> > I am confused.
> > Core was never meant to be useful without Bindings. It is just a
> reference
> > document / a building block / abstract class that is needed to be
> > instantiated to a concrete spec by a binding.
> > What you want seem to be a "Basic HTTP Binding" that has no JWT etc.,
> > instead of a minimized core.
> > A binding or a profile is the document that a developer should read.
> > To make it easier for them to read, I do not mind having duplicate text
> > between the binding and the core.
>
> I think we should be focusing on the HTTP document now. The core can
> be abstracted later.
>
> We are trying to build momentum by publishing a set of specs that can
> be the basis of interop events, for instance. The core spec does not
> promote this goal.
>
> I think we should table working on the abstract core for now and make
> sure that the constellation of specs around the HTTP protocol
> articulate well together and provide an end-to-end solution.
>
> Once we have the concrete work cleaned up and stabilized, we can
> extract an abstract core from it.
>
> I think working in the core at the same time that we try to get the
> other pieces together has been (a) creating confusion (b) preventing
> us from concentrating on a fully articulated HTTP binding document, as
> evidence by the fact that one currently does not exist (c) making it
> hard to figure out the boundaries between the various documents.
>
>
> > =nat
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am confused about the "HTTP Redirect Binding"
> >>
> >> - The Core now includes too little to be useful on its own without the
> >> reference to HTTP Binding
> >> - The HTTP Binding includes references to JWT which we agreed should
> >> not be necessary for basic implementations
> >>
> >> Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:43, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > OpenID Connect Framework:
> >> > http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-framework-1_0.html
> >> >
> >> > OpenID Connect HTTP Redirect Binding:
> >> > http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-http-redirect-1_0.html
> >> >
> >> > OpenID Connect UserInfo Endpoint:
> >> > http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-userinfo-1_0.html
> >> >
> >> > Sources:  http://svn.openid.net/repos/specifications/connect/1.0/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >                                                             -- Mike
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> >> > Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> >> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --Breno
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> >> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> > http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> > http://twitter.com/_nat_en
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --Breno
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110707/0677cc76/attachment.html>