Backporting the 2.0 extension mechanism to 1.1

[Nat Sakimura]

Actially, that interpretation is not right. In draft 3, we have made  
it clear.

=nat at iPhone

On 2008/08/12, at 2:35, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk> wrote:

> Johnny Bufu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/08 12:49 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>>> I notice that, like sreg, the pape extension is supporting 1.1 by
>>> simply hard-coding the "pape" prefix on its arguments.
>>
>> Where/how? To my knowledge the opposite is true, per the last  
>> paragraph
>> here:
>>
>> <http://openid.net/specs/openid-provider-authentication-policy-extension-1_0-02.html#anchor3 
>> >
>>
>
> In that referenced section it says:
>
>     For the purposes of this document *and when constructing OpenID  
> 1.1
>     messages*, the extension namespace alias SHALL be "pape".
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
> I understand that to mean that when making a 1.1 request the alias  
> must
> be "pape".
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs