Re: AX and Artifact Binding Charter Proposal

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:58:02 -0800

In practice it is a process issue. Getting folks to agree on a registry process is a larger task than adopting the 9 attributes in common use. I see whatever is in the spec becoming part of a registry. 

I just don't want to hold up what we need for what we would like.

John B.
On 2009-11-13, at 2:47 PM, John Kemp wrote:


Breno de Medeiros wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:05 AM, John Bradley <[email protected] > wrote:
+1 Fixing the missing policy URL and an agreement on a base set of AX URL 
need to be a priority.



Such agreement may be hard to achieve, but a set of URLs to support
discovery of supported attributes would be good. I am inclined to give 
on on URL registry at this moment and support baking them into the
spec directly, for expediency reasons
"Baking them into the spec" just says that the specification document itself is the registry, and that change requests are handled by the spec. editors. (so in practice, what's the difference between that and a separate web-page linked from the spec?) 

Cheers,

- johnk

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to