I'm certainly supportive of this approach; Eran has shown that he's a good editor. :)
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Blaine Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > <chair hat> > > Hi all, > > Hannes and I have discussed the results of the WG meeting, and while > there was a lot of good discussion that happened, it seems like the > next step for the WG is to buckle down and produce a stable draft that > incorporates all the various proposals, in particular WRAP and OAuth > 1.0a. David has done an excellent job with his draft, and I'd like to > see us follow through on that work quickly and effectively to offer > the various organizations who are looking to ship interoperable > solutions something to base their work on. > > To that end, we'd like to see Eran take up the editing work over the next > week. > > That work should be premised on re-incorporating the features from > WRAP that were removed in David's great start at a unified spec. > Dick's contributions have been invaluable towards reconciling the gap > between HMAC-based approaches and expiring bearer token approaches, > and we'd like to see that work be properly credited and evaluated > along with all of the other aspects of OAuth 1.0a and WRAP. > > Our hope is that soon, certainly well before the next OAuth WG meeting > (virtual or otherwise), we'll have a new RFC-style document that > satisfies the needs of everyone in the community. > > Blaine and Hannes. > > </chair hat> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
