<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hey Brian.<BR>
Just to clarify, I don't think there is disagreement that this should be discussed here. Rather the question is if discussion should be around creating a new schema on openid.net or rather looking at using an exisiting one such as ldap.com that Mark posted about? Ie, discussion location aside, do you believe the OpenID project should be creating a new schema of its own?<BR>
<BR>
--David<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Brian Hernacki [<A HREF="mailto:brian_hernacki@symantec.com">mailto:brian_hernacki@symantec.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 09:48 AM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
To: OpenID specs list<BR>
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL schema.openid.net for AX (and other extensions)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 4/6/07 6:07 PM, "Dick Hardt" <dick@sxip.com> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> If anyone implementing would like to do something different, then I'd<BR>
> welcome additional discussion, otherwise I think we should be able to<BR>
> move forward with the proposal.<BR>
<BR>
For what it's worth, as an implementer...<BR>
<BR>
I think it makes sense to come to agreement within the OpenID community and<BR>
get something working first. While I appreciate the issues involved with<BR>
having multiple protocols and attribute definitions, I worry that if this<BR>
becomes coupled to other efforts it would cause delays. Better to at least<BR>
come to that table with a sound version of what we think "works".<BR>
<BR>
Given that, discussing it here (openid.net) seems natural.<BR>
<BR>
--brian<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>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>