...
- Scott: as long as we come up with a way of people not stepping on each other extensions, then I don't have any concerns with JSON. It looks to me like dotted notation is allowed in JSON, so that makes it easy to do package-type naming. I'm not suggesting that any well-defined fields need to use dotted notation--I'm only suggesting that the extensions do need to use package naming.
- Axel: We might need some extensions in the future, but I'd be happy to come up with some simple thing that would be acceptable to 90% of the RPs for the next 5 years. The simplest thing is listing which widely-known IdPs are acceptable for an RP. For example the logical name of the IdP. If you look at the Janrain config files, most things are hidden--all I have to do is give it a list of well-known IdPs and everything else is extra. For example if the user/selector defines a different icon ....@@@@ from the one the RP specifies then it should be able to ignore the RP and use it. The most important thing is which IdPs are acceptable, the token format and where to post it. I'd like to make a list of things that are required by an RP and everything else comes later.
- Scott: Fine, but extensions are necessary for whatever we do. So as long as we have a standard way of dealing with this, we're fine.
- Axel: The problem with dots is that the field names become sub-fields. So if you have dots in the name, then you have dots in the record.
- Axel will try a test with dots
- Scott: even if it needs to be escaped, that's okay
...