I disagree that the current spec is a good starting point - the issues I've raised have been ignored, and the spec is now much more complicated from both sides of the implementation fence. On May 7, 2012 3:17 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Walter, > > I'm not sure what the full set of issues will be, but I only have a couple > of small edits queued for -05 at present (one being "template" should be > "href" in the example at the end of 4.2 that you pointed out to me > privately). We've already worked through a number of issues to get to this > point, so there may not be a lot of changes needed. I'll not dismiss the > possibility that there are editorial issues, but I hope we've resolved most > of the technical details. > > We probably still need to have the discussion of keeping CORS and what > additions are needed to the security section. We've made a few changes > there already, but I'm not sure if it still fully addresses some of the > privacy concerns. > > Paul > > On 5/7/2012 5:37 AM, Goix Laurent Walter wrote: > > I also support this draft as a way forward for the discussion that I > think captures the essence of both philosophies. **** > > ** ** > > If such basis is agreed what are the major pending issues?**** > > ** ** > > Regards**** > > Laurent-walter**** > > ** ** > > *Da:* [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *Per conto di *Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) > *Inviato:* venerdì 4 maggio 2012 21.50 > *A:* Murray S. Kucherawy > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Oggetto:* Re: [apps-discuss] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04**** > > ** ** > > I support this doc being adopted as starting point for WG discussion.**** > > Regards,**** > > ** ** > > Gonzalo**** > > ** ** > > > On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > The above-named draft has been offered as the recommended path forward > in terms of converging on a single document to advance through appsawg. > The conversation I saw this week in that regard has seemed mostly positive. > **** > > **** > > Please review it, or at least the diff, and indicate your support or > objection on [email protected] to adopting this one as the common > path forward. We would like to make a decision about which one to begin > advancing in the next week or two.**** > > **** > > Have a good weekend!**** > > **** > > -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair**** > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
