<hat type='chair'/> On 3/3/10 3:47 PM, Igor Faynberg wrote:
> I do think that we need to address a couple of items such as the use > cases and requirements. The need for those also came quite strongly in > the surveys. I do not see any problem in developing both in parallel > (although I do expect that some people would insist on the > requirements--in support of the use cases--coming first). Although I like requirements and use cases documents as much as the next person, I think we can work on those in parallel with the protocol document given that the WG participants have quite a bit of knowledge about the problem domain (we're not starting from scratch here). > One way of addressing this is having the use case requirements sections > in the document you are putting together. The other would be to work > them in a separate document. My personal opinion is that it would be good to have a separate document that captures and consolidates a wide variety of use cases (preferably managed by one or two assigned document editors in accordance with RFC 2418), but that is something the WG would need to agree on. I hope we can have some preliminary discussions about that in tomorrow's conference call and perhaps come to consensus on the matter in Anaheim or soon after. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
