Backwards compatibility

Dick Hardt dick at sxip.com
Mon Sep 25 10:50:29 UTC 2006


So you would not support inames, Yadis, nonces, IdP-driven identifier  
selection on LiveJournal?
I guess that would include attribute exchange as well?

Given that, I would say calling this OpenID 2.0 is a misnomer.

usually a new version name implies there is some incompatibility, and  
there is not anything worth you upgrading, then perhaps this should  
just be called OpenID 1.2 and use the extension mechanism to add in  
other things so that message compatability is not broken.

ie. new parameters and functionality would be all discovered and only  
invoked if the IdP supports it

A 1.1 RP can't support inames or IdP driven identifier selection, but  
would have no other expectations of the IdP.

-- Dick

On 22-Sep-06, at 11:16 AM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

> Yes.
>
> For instance, I'd planned to not update LiveJournal to OpenID 2.0  
> because
> there's nothing in 2.0 that I care enough about to make the time/ 
> testing
> investment.  So I'd say OpenID 2.0 should work perfectly with  
> LiveJournal
> (still OpenID 1.1) when this is all done.
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Recordon, David wrote:
>
>> Like Josh, I believe it is important to maintain number 1.
>>
>> My intention would be that someone could read OpenID  
>> Authentication 2.0,
>> never having read 1.1, implement a library, and have it work with an
>> implementation from someone who has only read 1.1 and not 2.0.  This
>> means that in 2.0 we need to both continue making the conscious  
>> effort
>> to only change what is required, as well as to mark things which have
>> been deprecated though are still required in implementations for
>> backwards compatibility.  While I agree that the number of  
>> deployments
>> is relatively small, we should do everything possible to maintain
>> compatibility with them.
>>
>> --David
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf Of Josh Hoyt
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:31 PM
>> To: specs at openid.net
>> Subject: Backwards compatibility
>>
>> When making and evaluating proposals, there have been many  
>> references to
>> backwards compatibility. I'm not sure that everyone has the same idea
>> what it means to be backwards compatible.
>>
>> There are at least two meanings that I can see:
>>
>> 1. Messages that are valid OpenID 2.0 messages are also valid OpenID
>> 1.1 messages
>>
>> 2. It is possible for implementations to differentiate between OpenID
>> 1.1 and 2.0 and to construct appropriate messages. In essence, it's a
>> different protocol.
>>
>> I've been focused on maintaining (1). How do you see it?
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>




More information about the specs mailing list