PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)

Dick Hardt dick at sxip.com
Thu Oct 19 03:34:52 UTC 2006


Why SHOULD rather then MUST? [1]

What valid reason is there for an RP to not have that field name?

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

-- Dick

On 18-Oct-06, at 1:28 PM, Recordon, David wrote:

> Agreed, just like the spec already says "The form field's "name"
> attribute SHOULD have the value "openid_identifier" as to allow User
> Agents to automatically prefill the End User's Identifier when  
> visiting
> a Relying Party."
>
> I'm all for this feature, as well as even identifying the form itself,
> though don't see how it should be a MUST over a SHOULD for a Relying
> Party.
>
> --David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Daugherty
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:33 PM
> To: Dick Hardt
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)
>
> # Proposal
> #
> # Modify 8.1 to:
> # ...
> #
> # The form field's "name" attribute MUST have the value #
> "openid_identifier" as to allow User Agents to automatically prefill #
> the End User's Identifier when visiting a Relying Party.
>
> This should be a SHOULD, not a MUST.
>
> --
>   Jonathan Daugherty
>   JanRain, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>




More information about the specs mailing list