I am also supportive of this approach. On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:13 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> I'm certainly supportive of this approach; Eran has shown that he's a > good editor. :) > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Blaine Cook <rom...@gmail.com> wrote: >> <chair hat> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Hannes and I have discussed the results of the WG meeting, and while >> there was a lot of good discussion that happened, it seems like the >> next step for the WG is to buckle down and produce a stable draft that >> incorporates all the various proposals, in particular WRAP and OAuth >> 1.0a. David has done an excellent job with his draft, and I'd like to >> see us follow through on that work quickly and effectively to offer >> the various organizations who are looking to ship interoperable >> solutions something to base their work on. >> >> To that end, we'd like to see Eran take up the editing work over the next >> week. >> >> That work should be premised on re-incorporating the features from >> WRAP that were removed in David's great start at a unified spec. >> Dick's contributions have been invaluable towards reconciling the gap >> between HMAC-based approaches and expiring bearer token approaches, >> and we'd like to see that work be properly credited and evaluated >> along with all of the other aspects of OAuth 1.0a and WRAP. >> >> Our hope is that soon, certainly well before the next OAuth WG meeting >> (virtual or otherwise), we'll have a new RFC-style document that >> satisfies the needs of everyone in the community. >> >> Blaine and Hannes. >> >> </chair hat> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
