Obviously, this will not be in a -00 draft for Orlando. So discussion should continue based on the text proposed to the list.
Does anyone have further technical comments? --Richard On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > ditto. > > 2013/2/11 Edmund Jay <[email protected]> > >> +1 for new I-D. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Brian Campbell <[email protected]> >> *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Fri, February 8, 2013 3:01:51 PM >> *Subject:* [jose] Proposal about the SPI proposal >> >> Maybe this was apparent from my comments/questions on the SPI proposal >> over the last couple days[1] but I have concerns that run the gamut from >> operational complexity and fragility to security problems. I believe >> strongly that, without considerably more analysis and specification detail, >> the current SPI work is much too risky to consider go in the current base >> JOSE WG drafts. >> >> As an alternative I'd like to request/propose that the SPI stuff be >> submitted as new I-D to help facilitate that additional discussion and >> analysis that I think it needs. >> >> Thanks, >> Brian >> >> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg01500.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jose mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >> >> > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
