Suggested scoping for AX 2.0 WG

[David Recordon]

Agreed with Allen, let's modernize SREG so that the spec matches how  
people are using it already with 2.0 though point people to using AX  
instead.  I'd prefer this happen within the same WG.

--David

On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Allen Tom wrote:

> Hi Dick,
>
> I'll be happy to add language to the revised SREG spec to strongly  
> encourage all new deployments to use AX and to NOT  use SREG,  
> however, given the current popularity of SREG, I think it's a good  
> idea to clarify and modernize it a bit. Speaking on behalf of Yahoo,  
> once we have a usable version of AX, we will encourage RPs to use AX  
> over SREG.
>
> I do agree that AX for multiple users in a single request is quite a  
> bit different than the current design pattern, where an assertion is  
> about a single user. I'm not sure how bulk AX would work without  
> OAuth.
>
> Allen
>
> Dick Hardt wrote:
>> 1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it  
>> being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add  
>> language directing people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion  
>> either way? (SREG included in this WG or in a different one?)
>>
>> 2) In the Scope section, I feel strongly that bulk exchange of  
>> attributes about multiple users is out of scope. It is a very  
>> different design pattern then what AX does now. I have not seen the  
>> background on why this is in scope, so perhaps I can have a  
>> different view if someone cares to enlighten me.
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>> PS: please use my microsoft.com address for any specs discussions.
>>
>>
>