Mark, I will work with the authors on proposed wording to describe the
context in which this technology is most applicable, and post again once
we've done that.
On 7/13/11 5:35 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Personally, I think Informational is most appropriate (and probably easier),
but a
Personally, I think Informational is most appropriate (and probably easier),
but a paragraph or two of context, as well as corresponding adjustments, would
work as well.
Cheers,
On 13/07/2011, at 5:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/21/11 11:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generally, it's
On 7/12/11 2:06 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/21/11 11:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal,
for a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I
do question the need for it to be Standards
On 7/13/11 5:35 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Personally, I think Informational is most appropriate (and probably
easier), but a paragraph or two of context, as well as corresponding
adjustments, would work as well.
Personally I'm not wedded to Standards Track for this document, and
neither are
On 6/21/11 11:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal,
for a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I
do question the need for it to be Standards Track as a general
mechanism.
How about publishing it on the
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/21/11 11:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal,
for a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I
do question the need for it to be Standards Track as a general
mechanism.
How
...@gmx.netmailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net,
ietf@ietf.orgmailto:ietf@ietf.org IETF
ietf@ietf.orgmailto:ietf@ietf.org, Eran Hammer-lahav
e...@hueniverse.commailto:e...@hueniverse.com, oauth WG
oa...@ietf.orgmailto:oa...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt (Web
...@mnot.net
Cc: ietf@ietf.org IETF ietf@ietf.org; oauth WG oa...@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Second Last Call: draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt (Web
Host Metadata) to Proposed Standard -- feedback
Hannes,
None of the current OAuth WG document address discovery in any
, ietf@ietf.org
IETF ietf@ietf.org, Eran Hammer-lahav e...@hueniverse.com,
oauth WG oa...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt (Web
Host Metadata) to Proposed Standard -- feedback
I also never really understood why XRD was re-used.
Btw, XRD
: draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt (Web Host
Metadata) to Proposed Standard -- feedback
I also never really understood why XRD was re-used.
Btw, XRD is not used by any of the current OAuth WG documents, see
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/oauth/
On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Mark Nottingham
I also never really understood why XRD was re-used.
Btw, XRD is not used by any of the current OAuth WG documents, see
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/oauth/
On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
* XRD -- XRD is an OASIS spec that's used by OpenID and OAuth. Maybe I'm just
Mark,
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal, for
a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I do
question the need for it to be Standards Track as a general mechanism.
I believe standards track is appropriate, since the objective is to define
On 23/06/2011, at 2:04 AM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
Mark,
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal, for
a few reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I do
question the need for it to be Standards Track as a general mechanism.
I believe standards
Generally, it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about this proposal, for a few
reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, but I do question the
need for it to be Standards Track as a general mechanism.
Mostly, it's because I hasn't really seen much discussion of it as a general
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Web Host Metadata'
draft-hammer-hostmeta-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send
15 matches
Mail list logo
