I am not going to spend the time it will take to write it in the new organization only to take it out later. I much rather take it out in -12 and put it right back in -13 if they rejoin us and show support.
As for damage, since this is a well-contained feature that is trivial to add as an extension, I don't see any problem. It's ironic that you, who consistently wanted anything that is not back up by significant deployment experience removed, is pushing for including a feature that clearly belongs to that category. Even you are not going to use it. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Eaton [mailto:bea...@google.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:21 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal to drop/relocate > response_type=code_and_token > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav > <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > > Since no one else (other than you) showed any interest in keeping this > section in for the past 9 days, I assume they don't care. I will remove this. > > This is an unfortunate assumption, and I think it could do serious damage to > the spec. I think before you declare consensus to have changed, it would be > a good idea to reach out to the people who had the original use cases to see > what they think. > > Very few people have the bandwidth to follow every thread on this mailing > list. Furthermore, once they make sure that the spec is going to address > their needs they don't read the list as carefully. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
