Consistency of negative responses to checkid_immediate requests

[Johnny Bufu]

On 14-Dec-06, at 12:13 AM, Josh Hoyt wrote:

> On 12/13/06, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk> wrote:
>> Josh Hoyt wrote:
>>>
>>> It's confusing to me make the failure response to an immediate mode
>>> request be "id_res", especially if that is not the failure response
>>> for setup mode. I can't see a reason that they can't both use the
>>> "cancel" response to indicate that the OP or end user do not wish to
>>> complete the transaction.
>>>
>>> This is a very minor change, but it will make the spec simpler.
>>>
>>
>> I think the RP will want to do something different in these two  
>> cases.
>
> That's true, but the RP will probably need to handle the success case
> differently for immediate mode anyway (e.g. it will have to do AJAX to
> update the page) so I expect it to have a specific return_to URL for
> immediate requests. Since using a different return_to is trivial, I
> prefer the consistency of negative responses.

The current / v1 modes will need to be mentioned in the compatibility  
section, and also implemented. Not sure if this simplification will  
then still be worth.

Johnny