Any progress on naming on this thing? Didn't see any reply to my previous
comment, but that might have been because I replied to the -02 publication
notice and it might have gotten filtered.
Similarly, the question of extending the error registry to allow the server
tofeed back a failure if
I agree that changing the name could avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion
(and said as much in Sept
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13361.html).
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bill Mills wmills_92...@yahoo.com wrote:
Any progress on naming on this thing? Didn't see
The OAuth meeting is today.
We ran into the publication deadline for the IETF meeting during IIW so haven't
published a update yet.
We do have text on defining error codes that we will discuss today.
I expect the name discussion will also happen today.Changing the draft name
is annoying
If you guys aren’t participating remotely today, I’ll try to bring this up in a
couple hours.
— Justin
On Nov 12, 2014, at 6:56 AM, Brian Campbell bcampb...@pingidentity.com wrote:
I agree that changing the name could avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion
(and said as much in Sept
I don't actually care if we change the document tracking name from
...-oauth-spop as long as we change the name of the thing in the text.
Agreed doc name changing is annoying, it's survivable though. Having done it
once I'd do it differently if I had to do it again, submitting the last
Yes we would do that, but it is a WG document now so the authors shouldn't just
do it on our own.
On Nov 12, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Bill Mills wmills_92...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't actually care if we change the document tracking name from
...-oauth-spop as long as we change the name of the thing
Title change can wait till towards the end, I guess.
Title change does not necessarily mean the filename change either, I
suppose.
The presso that I plan to use today is available here:
http://www.slideshare.net/nat_sakimura/1112-spoppresso
On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 2:18:48 John Bradley
