Examples are not normative, but errata in the sense of "a slip in the
book" is nice none the less.
There is no official move on the PAPE front right now, but may be in a
near future.
=...@tokyo via iPhone
On 2009/06/19, at 23:07, Paul Madsen <paulmad...@rogers.com> wrote:
are examples normative? If not, is an errata necessary?
Are there any plans for another PAPE version?
paul
John Bradley wrote:
The normative text is correct.
It was always openid.pape.preferred_auth_level_types form Oct 2008
when it was added to draft 5.
The bad example crept in in Draft 6 and went unnoticed.
We will need to figure out a process for errata.
Thanks for picking it up.
John B.
On 17-Jun-09, at 1:03 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
Hi All,
In Section 5.1 of the PAPE Spec, there's a request parameter
defined called
openid.pape.preferred_auth_level_types
however the example in the same section calls it
openid.pape.preferred_auth_levels
Which one is it?
Thanks
_______________________________________________
specs-pape mailing list
specs-p...@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-pape
_______________________________________________
specs-pape mailing list
specs-p...@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-pape
_______________________________________________
specs-pape mailing list
specs-p...@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-pape
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
specs@openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
