[Openid-specs-ab] Potential ticket to file for registration

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 01:31:00 UTC 2012


I am not suggesting to split the Registration into two documents.
I am suggesting to have a section that defines messages, then another
section that defines a HTTP binding.
Other bindings can refer the messages section and will be shorter.

For Smart Phone IdP, I was just thinking of the identical message
handed to the IdP in a request file.
i.e., the Client shows a page with <a
href="customscheme://?request_uri=https://client.example.com/registfile.jwt">.
Then the Client IdP App will be invoked and will go fetch the
https://client.example.com/registfile.jwt.

=nat


On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:18 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> Registration is probably different enough to require a totally different spec anyway if you are dealing with a smart phone.
> I don't know that separating registration into two documents helps much.
>
>
> On 2012-01-17, at 7:27 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
>> I am now considering the case for "IdP in a Smart Phone".
>> That typically requires custom schema which is called through GET.
>>
>> As the Messages is abstract, it allows it but the Registration does
>> not as it mandates it to be done through POST. Perhaps it would have
>> been better to separate a messages section and a binding section to
>> allow other bindings to be defined later.
>>
>> Nat Sakimura
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list