All of this discussion is occurring at a pretty abstract level. I hope we can
soon make it concrete, because then it would be actionable.
Do any of you who felt that changes might be needed to the Assertions spec or
related specs have specific textual changes to propose to any of the specs,
which we could then consider the merits of together?
Thanks,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:10 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory to implement
> I can tell you that I don't think Barry and I are asking for
> contradictory things. They are different, but not contradictory, and
> have the same goal (interop). I believe Barry would agree with that.
>
> Saying that field X is MTI can be entirely consistent with defining a
> protocol that allow for negotiating whether or not to use field X for
> example.
He would, indeed agree with that -- with all of it.
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
