[Openid-specs-ab] Question on Core vs AB

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 01:40:43 UTC 2011


You are welcome to write one or two bindings :-)

For session management, Breno and Paul has been leading the discussion and
it is close to be baked.

Most discussion are happening at regular WG call every monday afternoon at
4:00PM PDT.
I will forward the call-in information to you if you would like to join.

# For those in the list - please indicate if you would like to join the
call.

=nat


On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Chuck Mortimore <cmortimore at salesforce.com
> wrote:

> Thanks Nat - User agent and web server were the bindings I was looking
> for...basically the non-normative web server examples in core are pretty
> close.
>
> Is the session management discussion happening on list or off?
>
> Sorry I'm a little out of the loop.  Just catching up now that my new baby
> girl is sleeping better.
>
> - cmort
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:06 PM, "Nat Sakimura" <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> The core is just an abstract spec, akin to abstract class in object
> oriented programming.
> It does not define Bindings in it nor it requires Request File etc.
> One has to define a binding first. Artifact Binding is one such binding,
> but there is going to be
> User-Agent Flow Binding etc. as well. It just has not been written, partly
> due to we have gone into
> session management discussion before doing another binding. Actually,
> writing a binding is
> quite simple so we are tackling with harder problems right now.
>
> As to the binding, we are writing User-Agent Flow binding, Artifact
> Binding, and Web Server Flow binding probably.
> If you have anything else in mind, please suggest it.
>
> =nat
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Chuck Mortimore <<cmortimore at salesforce.com>
> cmortimore at salesforce.com> wrote:
>
>>  Question on this line in the Connect Core Spec:
>>
>> This specification only defines the abstract messsage flow and message
>> formats. The actual use MUST base on one of the companion protocol bindings
>> specifications such as *OpenID Connect Artifact Binding 1.0 <#OpenID.AB>
>> * [OpenID.AB] .
>>
>>
>> It strikes me as Artifact Binding should be an optional way to use
>> connect, and that for many applications constructing an addressable
>> Authorization Request file is either difficult or un-necessary.   CC
>> provides for direct query param serialization of the request.   Why prevent
>> CC from being used directly?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -cmort
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>  <Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>>  <http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab>
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> <http://www.sakimura.org/en/>http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> <http://twitter.com/_nat_en>http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>
>


-- 
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/20110323/94e1e562/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list