Pelle Braendgaard wrote: > It just happens > that due to Yahoo probably being the oldest company involved in the > process, it is having the hardest time dealing with the concept of > open. > Hi Pelle,
Just to reiterate Eran's followup, Yahoo has been engaged in OAuth from nearly the beginning. Unfortunately, we were unable to directly contribute to the 1.0 spec due to IPR and other business issues, which have since been resolved. With regards to being open, when we were finally able to openly participate in OAuth , we wanted to be as transparent as possible when we proposed the Session Extension. We fully documented our motivation for proposing the extension on the public Google Group, and we directly reached out to many OAuth implementors for their feedback, and we even hosted an OAuth Summit at Yahoo HQ. Yahoo has technical requirements that are different than the requirements of the companies that contributed to the 1.0 spec. We had the option to remain entirely proprietary and stick with Yahoo BBAuth, or to adopt an open standard like OAuth. Rather than sticking with a completely proprietary protocol, we chose to work with the community to build on the OAuth standard. Allen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
