[Openid-specs-ab] Little more feedback

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Tue Jul 12 18:25:04 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> In general, I agree that the short names are confusing for beginners or
> >> people trying to discern meaning only from code.  I found the specs very
> >> easy to read and understand, but tough to know whether some pieces were
> >> required to be developed or just optional.
> >> For example:  Core section 4 (Serialization) states that messages can be
> >> serialized in either format (JSON or Query String) unless expressly
> >> forbidden on a per-message basis -- but nothing in section 4 answers the
> >> question of whether or not an implementer is required to support both
> >> serializations to be conformant, or whether they can only support one.
> >
> > Actually, "core", which is likely to be called something like "Connect
> > Messages" are just listing all the possible variations on messages as a
> > reference, so it does not say anything about conformance. It should be
> > defined in the "Bindings" such as "OpenID Connect (was: HTTP Redirect
> > Binding)".
> >>
> >> Another example is ID Token - it appeared in the session and userinfo
> >> specs but not in the core, http binding, or framework spec (unless I
> missed
> >> it).
> >
> > Things were separated out due to some request from the community member,
> but
> > it proves to be more confusing than not. I suggest re-combining "core"
> and
> > "framework" and call it "Connect Messages".
> I don't think there's agreement in our group to do so. All the

No. That is why I have not touch the specs in this respect yet.
As far as I remember, it was the decision of the WG to wait the
reorganization until we finish the current pass of the spec review.
The files that I sent earlier and is attaching now has not done anything wrt
(Just to make note of, I have not done any edit wrt the comment you made as
George is working on it. )

However, it does not preclude a parallel discussion of the possible
Current state is that George suggested a reorganization, and Pam, John,
Johnny, and me +1ed.
Pam further suggested to call the entire suite as Framework, and Johnny
+1ed, but Tony -1ed.

> feedback we get from developers is contrary to this.

So they like the current organization?

> The reason things are confusing right now has to do with the fact that
> the spec has been refactored many times and the writing did not keep
> up well. We need to fix the writing, not merge specs when we have
> evidence it will be damaging to the message of
> simplicity+extensibility we want to convey.

Could you kindly explain the evidence so that I can understand better?

> --
> --Breno

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110713/4e483b93/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list