Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> It is time to admit that while the terms fit the model, they confuse the shit
> out of everyone reading the spec. That's a clear FAIL.
I think that's a good synopsis:-)
Just one thing though, given that the putative IETF WG is probably
going to be chartered to address these terminology issues (at least
according to the current charter), folks here should be ready for
another round of changes if/when the IETF WG gets spun up.
No harm to have improved proposals in the meantime of course, but
some or all of this is likely to be revisited in the IETF context
since that'll be a different set of folks on a different list
working to the IETF's rough consensus model.
It'd help there if draft-hammer-oauth-01 (assuming you plan to do
one before the IETF meeting) has a good section listing all changes
since draft-hammer-oauth-00.
S.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OAuth" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
