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
