Of course. :)

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:

> Hopefully by 1.0 you mean draft-hammer-oauth, not the community edition
> with its “Consumer Key” and other inventions.
>
>
>
> EHL
>
>
>
> *From:* oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Recordon
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:35 PM
> *To:* Peter Saint-Andre; Luke Shepard
> *Cc:* OAuth WG
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] terminology
>
>
>
> Hey Peter,
>
> Luke put together a spreadsheet comparing the terminology across five or
> six different protocols.  Hopefully he'll share it. :)
>
>
>
> I have a pretty strong preference of sticking with OAuth 1.0 terminology as
> much as possible.
>
>
>
> --David
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im>
> wrote:
>
> One of the topics discussed during our conference call last week was the
> matter of terminology. All agreed that we need to gain clarity and
> consensus regarding the terms we use. To help us achieve that, I've
> created a stub wiki page:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/wiki/OauthTerms
>
> If you don't yet have a wiki account, please go here:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/newlogin
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to