Connect spec updated

[Joseph Holsten]

Trolls have special diets properly balanced for their information needs. Please, for their health and yours, don't feed the trolls.
--
http://josephholsten.com

On May 19, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Pid wrote:

> On 19/05/2010 09:51, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>> [snip]
> 
> I *am* new around here and I'm trying to get up to speed with the state
> of play.  I would find it easier to comprehend the suggestions being
> discussed if there was slightly less background noise.
> 
> A community supporting a mature standard or product need not offer new
> things regularly as long as it can support the inquiries of new members.
> 
> I think it would be unusual to churn out new specs constantly just to
> keep new community members interested.  This is not an environment
> that's comparable to an online shop.
> 
> 
> $0.02
> 
> 
> p
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com
>> <mailto:recordond at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Replying with "bullshit" isn't going to welcome anyone new into this
>>    community. Please stop doing this; you've been asked many times.
>> 
>>    Yes, we should increase the involvement of browser vendors and it's
>>    great seeing the work that's happening around FireFox. I plan to
>>    track down that team tomorrow and get a better understanding of what
>>    browser-based APIs they're proposing and what information websites
>>    need to advertise to browsers.
>> 
>>    --David
>> 
>> 
>>    On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:santrajan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>        HA! BullShit!
>> 
>>         [snip]
>> 
>>        On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, David Recordon
>>        <recordond at gmail.com <mailto:recordond at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>            Coming out of some conversations at IIW today I've made some
>>            changes to the proposal. Patch is attached, but they are:
>>             - Allow passing in `user_id` as a hint when not using
>>            immediate mode in the request. 
>>             - Continue to allow users to enter URLs, email addresses,
>>            and click buttons but the returned user identifier must be a
>>            HTTPS URI.
>>             - Include the expiration time within the signature.
>>             - Clarify how you verify if the token endpoint is
>>            authoritative for a given user identifier.
>>             - Simplify discovery by removing LRDD and using host-meta
>>            to determine the server token endpoint on a per domain (or
>>            sub-domain) basis. We're having a hard time finding use
>>            cases of running multiple different OpenID servers per domain.
>>             - Remove the separate user info API endpoint and instead
>>            make the user identifiers a protected resource. Fetch the
>>            user identifier with an access token and it returns basic
>>            profile information as well as if the access token was
>>            issued by that specific user.
>> 
>>            Thanks for all of the feedback and support both virtually
>>            and in person! I'm planning to move this proposal into
>>            GitHub next week (and work with Eran to actually format it
>>            like a spec) so that changes are easier to keep track of.
>> 
>>            --David
>> 
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            specs mailing list
>>            specs at lists.openid.net <mailto:specs at lists.openid.net>
>>            http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>        -- 
>>        http://hi.im/santosh
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs