On 24 Mar 2010, at 9:54 AM, Hans Granqvist wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> By keeping all profiles in one document, someone easily understands the
>> different applications of the technology, and when a different use case
>> comes up, they know it is available rather than having to look at a
>> different document.
>
> Yes. One doc rules since the spec + its delta changes are immediately obvious.
>
> Multiple docs lead to unnecessary restating of facts, potential
> redefinitions of terms, versioning and feature creep clashes, visual
> hiding of complexity, scopes, etc. + you never know if you have the
> whole set of docs. Think WS-*.
On reflection, I agree (having contributed to the SAML proliferation-of-specs
problem). Any profiles that meet some threshold of interest -- say, more than
one party asking for it -- and that are known prior to final publication would
be good to include in one package. There are editing, review, and approval
overhead costs for every separate spec that this group itself publishes. But
it should also be clear how others can produce spinoff profile specs. SAML
offered guidelines for people writing third-party profiles and extensions, and
a lighter-weight version of this might be nice to have on record if there's any
complexity to it.
Eve
Eve Maler
[email protected]
http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
