[WRAP] Wrap Artifact Binding/Mobile Profile

[Nat Sakimura]

+1

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:44 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> I agree that there is no practical use for the association handle if we
> have a per artifact secret.
>
> That is why it may be useful to think of artefact as something not
> dependent on the existing redirect binding.
>
> John B.
> On 2010-02-16, at 6:34 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>
> > Hi John -
> >
> > I was not suggesting that everyone use Artifact binding - presumably the
> OP
> > will indicate that it supports Artifact binding in its discovery
> document,
> > and it'll be up to the RP initiate the artifact request.
> >
> > Also, regarding my previous proposal to ditch the association request for
> > artifact binding - I concede that artifact binding is orthogonal to
> > associations.
> >
> > However, if one of the goals of artifact binding is to shorten the size
> of
> > the requests/responses, then eliminating the association handle would be
> > consistent with this goal.
> >
> > Allen
> >
> > On 2/16/10 1:09 PM, "John Bradley" <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> We can't force everyone to do artifact.  We will still need to support
> >> associations in RP's.
> >> We cant just ditch the concept completely.
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100217/6d2da00b/attachment.htm>