Yes, that is quite helpful. Thanks! On 2/3/10 1:30 AM, David Recordon wrote: > Looks > like > http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AjpBrc9X0st3dFBNQUpnZzFJbmFGOTkxZUVNdGdxMmc&hl=en > <http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AjpBrc9X0st3dFBNQUpnZzFJbmFGOTkxZUVNdGdxMmc&hl=en> > is actually public. > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im > <mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote: > > On 1/28/10 11:35 PM, David Recordon wrote: > > Hey Peter, > > Luke put together a spreadsheet comparing the terminology across > five or > > six different protocols. Hopefully he'll share it. :) > > That would be great. I'll ping him off-list, or he can just attach it to > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/wiki/OauthTerms by first > provisioning an account at http://tools.ietf.org/newlogin :) > > > I have a pretty strong preference of sticking with OAuth 1.0 > terminology > > as much as possible. > > Agreed. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
