+1
Allows us to easily have a request_nonce now or in the future and
have clarity on what is what
-- Dick
On 9-Oct-06, at 2:19 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
Judging from a lack of responses, I'm guessing people don't really
care.
Is this a correct assessment?
I'm +1 to this to add clarity, though also in the don't really care
boat at the same time.
--David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Recordon, David
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:25 PM
To: specs@openid.net
Subject: [VOTE] Rename openid.nonce to openid.response_nonce
Stemming from the proposal to add a request nonce, the idea to rename
the openid.nonce field to openid.response_nonce surfaced. Is this
something that we should do?
Vote closes Tuesday the 10th at 3:30pm PST. Votes are +1 (in
support of
idea), 0 (abstain), or -1 (disagree). Traditionally a -1 vote, with
appropriate technical reasoning, will cause the vote as a whole to
fail.
In this case, I believe it will be best to make the decision tallying
all votes for and against unless a strong technical argument can be
made
for not renaming this parameter.
--David
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
___
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
