[Openid-specs-ab] Reserved member definitions

Roland Hedberg roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se
Thu Sep 22 06:50:04 UTC 2011


21 sep 2011 kl. 21:59 skrev John Bradley:

> there is no namespace support in JSON.
> 
> Each claim request and response needs to be a URI containing the poco namespace. 
> 
> For the aggregated claim example in Messages 3.3.4.2 we should change the examples to be URI .  the short names are confusing and meaningless.

This has been shown time after time, so I firmly believe that short names should be avoided at all cost.
Unless it's very clear from the context which namespace they belong to.

> 3.1.2.1.1 should also be using URI for the claim request.
> 
> My point being that claim names MUST be unambiguous.   Given that aggregated claims may come from multiple sources.  
> So that would be the short reserved names, or URI if we want interoperability.   Aggregated claims MUST use URI.
> 
> That is my take on it.  We should fix the examples and make it clearer.

I'm totally in agreement with John on this.

> We currently have schema in 3.3.1 for the request.   Given the current spec if you passed in http://portablecontacts.net/ns/1.0 you might expect to get back the basic profile in portable contacts schema.   That was intended for backwards compatibility with existing endpoints rather than messing with the response.  I don't know if it is more trouble than it is worth.

As an implementer of the specs I don't think so.

-- Roland
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110922/3470f448/attachment.asc>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list