On 2010-05-21, at 4:51 PM, Martin Atkins wrote: > On 05/21/2010 04:47 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: >> >> 2) What is different from the v.Next efforts? If this is a different >> approach to the same problem, it would seem to make sense to argue the >> different technical merits in one WG rather then two. Why is this WG is >> needed in addition to the v.Next work that is starting to spin up? Many >> members of the community gathered at the OpenID Summit, (a meeting you >> helped organize David!) and the consensus was the v.Next WGs that were >> kicked off. If you are unhappy with the progress there, how about putting >> effort into moving those along rather than starting a new WG? >> > > I believe one important difference is that this work group aims to produce a > single document encompassing the entire OpenID flow, whereas the "vNext" > effort is split into two or more work groups and is thus unable to > cross-pollinate nor produce a single document at the end. > > Of course, that's all just OIDF bureaucracy and nothing to do with the > technical stuff.
Nothing says we could not produce a single document v.Next document for the simpler use cases in v.Next. The consensus at the Summit was it made sense to break the work into a number of WGs. If that has changed, we could fold some WGs together for v.Next. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
