PROPOSAL: OpenID Form Clarification (A.4)

Pete Rowley prowley at redhat.com
Thu Oct 19 22:00:10 UTC 2006


Recordon, David wrote:
> Combining this with the fact that there is no viable way to enforce
> sections 8.1 or A.4 being MUSTs, I do not believe that they should be
> changed from SHOULDs.  The only conceivable way I could see of enforcing
> something like this is telling a Relying Party that they cannot use
> OpenID Authentication if they don't follow these non-essential markup
> requirements; that is not something I am willing to do.
>   
"Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you send."

Enforcement is not a requirement. Having said that, I think I agree with 
you: SHOULD is probably strong enough to ensure that those who can, will.

-- 
Pete

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20061019/549cb977/attachment-0002.bin>


More information about the specs mailing list