PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)

[Chris Drake]

Hi Jonathan,

I vote for MUST.

The opinion of unenforcability isn't a justification for SHOULD, and I
disagree with that opinion anyhow: we already know that browser-chrome
plugins will be supporting OpenID - as soon as an RP picks some other
field name, he'll get a flood of complains from users who can't log in
to his site.

Kind Regards,
Chris Drake


Thursday, October 19, 2006, 5:27:02 PM, you wrote:

JD> # Why SHOULD rather then MUST? [1]
JD> # 
JD> # What valid reason is there for an RP to not have that field name?

JD> The simple reason is that one can't enforce a MUST in this case.  (And
JD> even if one ammends the spec to make the field name a prerequisite for
JD> OpenID, I question whether that is a good design choice.)

JD> I agree that it would be extremely useful to have a consistent form
JD> field name for just the reasons you cited, and the current spec
JD> reflects that.  If the spec is the place one would put preferences,
JD> then they should be RECOMMENDEDs or SHOULDs: not MUSTs.