Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form Discovery Working Group)

[Breno de Medeiros]

Splitting the specification will also make it easier to understand the
changes between Yadis-based and XRD-based discovery, since the authN
part of the spec is unlikely to change as much.

I am in favor of separating the two specifications and create a
2.0-compatible (with language clean-up) version of discovery.

2009/1/6 Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>:
> But I suppose it is worthwhile to make the spec clearler.
> It can be clearer by decomposeing the notion of OP into Discovery Service
> and Authentication Service than collectively calling it as "OP". That will
> facilitate a better understanding of the strength and weakness of the
> protocol as well.
>
> =nat
>
> 2009/1/6 Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net>
>>
>> Agreed that it makes sense to split it out when the underlying work (XRD
>> 1.0) is ready.
>>
>>
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: David Recordon [mailto:drecordon at sixapart.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:24 PM
>> To: Drummond Reed
>> Cc: sappenin at gmail.com; 'Nat Sakimura'; 'John Bradley'; specs at openid.net
>> Subject: Re: Separation of Discovery from AuthN (was Proposal to form
>> Discovery Working Group)
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd advocate for waiting until all of the discovery work occurring in
>> OASIS, IETF, and W3C shakes out before we make changes to how OpenID
>> discovery works.  I'd much rather make this sort of change once rather than
>> twice.
>>
>>
>>
>> --David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
>>
>> I'm just catching up on holiday mail and wanted to add another +1 to
>> separation of Discovery from AuthN. The sooner the better…
>>
>>
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
>> Of David Fuelling
>> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 8:47 AM
>> To: Nat Sakimura
>> Cc: John Bradley; specs at openid.net
>> Subject: Re: Proposal to form Discovery Working Group
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Separation of OP into Discovery Service and Authentication Service.
>>  In the current terminology, OP spans both Discovery Service and
>> Authentication Service.
>>  We should be explicit about it.
>>
>> +1.  I would like to see discovery services separated from OP services
>> too.
>>
>>
>> John Bradley wrote:
>> > Breno,
>> >
>> > I agree.  I recommended separating discovery into a separate doc for
>> > 2.1.
>> >
>> > There didn't seem to be support for the idea at the time,  perhaps
>> > circumstances have changed and the idea will be accepted now.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > John Bradley
>> > =jbradley
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>



-- 
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)