Well, the IESG won't approve a document that doesn't include a Security Considerations section. :)
I'll talk with Hannes about this in person here in Prague (he's sitting next to me at the moment, but we're in a meeting so we can't chat). On 3/27/11 10:19 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > I guess you can sort it out at the meeting. I thought the plan was to > distill the security document into a shorter (but not insignificant) > security consideration section (I was expecting something in the > range of 10-20 pages), and also publish the model document with added > details. > > EHL > >> -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Tschofenig >> [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net] Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 >> 1:10 AM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; OAuth WG >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authors, Contributors, Acknowledgement >> >> That's what I thought was the plan. (Assuming the working group >> agrees to work on a separate document. I would support it.) >> >> On Mar 27, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >> >>> So the new plan is for you to provide the text for the security >>> section and >> just publish their work as a separate RFC as the same time?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
