I've proposed two alternative languages and open to more. It would be great if people could just reply stating which they like best.
EH > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:20 PM > To: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23 > > > I am sorry, but with this language this is a different spec with > > different compliance profiles and without supplying enough guidance > > for creating interoperable server implementations for common > > deployment models. > > As I read this thread, I see two things come out clearly: > > 1. Eran didn't intend to make the change that some read into this, and > > 2. enough people interpret this as a change that Eran didn't intend that it's > worth fixing. > > Everyone agrees on how it should be -- right? So let's not worry about > whether the text is or isn't confusing, and instead focus on a small change to > the text that will keep the meaning that's intended and that takes the > confusion away from those who think something drastic has changed. That > should be easy to do, and quick and non-controversial to wrap up. > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > 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
