Delegation discussion summary

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

+1 sacred.


On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Drummond Reed wrote:

> +1 to Josh's point. IMHO identifier portability is "sacred". If anyone
> disagrees, please post, can we assume we have consensus on this?
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Josh Hoyt
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: Marius Scurtescu
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary
>
> On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <marius at sxip.com> wrote:
> > The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka
> > delegated identifiers) at all IMO.
>
> If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported for using a
> portable identifier, all IdPs will support it, so identifiers will
> actually be portable. You'd have a very difficult time trying to get
> people here to remove portable identifier support from the OpenID
> protocol.
>
> Josh
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>