<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: Delegation discussion summary</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>+1<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Drummond Reed [<A HREF="mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net">mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:46 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
To: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Marius Scurtescu'<BR>
Cc: specs@openid.net<BR>
Subject: RE: Delegation discussion summary<BR>
<BR>
+1 to Josh's point. IMHO identifier portability is "sacred". If anyone<BR>
disagrees, please post, can we assume we have consensus on this?<BR>
<BR>
=Drummond<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: specs-bounces@openid.net [<A HREF="mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net">mailto:specs-bounces@openid.net</A>] On Behalf<BR>
Of Josh Hoyt<BR>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:56 PM<BR>
To: Marius Scurtescu<BR>
Cc: specs@openid.net<BR>
Subject: Re: Delegation discussion summary<BR>
<BR>
On 10/12/06, Marius Scurtescu <marius@sxip.com> wrote:<BR>
> The protocol does not need to touch on IdP-specific identifiers (aka<BR>
> delegated identifiers) at all IMO.<BR>
<BR>
If there is a specified mechanism that must be supported for using a<BR>
portable identifier, all IdPs will support it, so identifiers will<BR>
actually be portable. You'd have a very difficult time trying to get<BR>
people here to remove portable identifier support from the OpenID<BR>
protocol.<BR>
<BR>
Josh<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
specs mailing list<BR>
specs@openid.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</A><BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
specs mailing list<BR>
specs@openid.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>