2013/8/2 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> > Yes. Forking is bad. This is not a fork. > > It isn't like OIDF membership hasn't been aware of the issue and hasn't > had time to respond (over a year now). The clear message was Connect is too > far along to consider changes. >
You are grossly misrepresenting it here. You did not sign the IPR agreement despite OIDF has done everything we could do to help you guys out. We spent a lot of time / effort / legal fee to accommodate your request but you have not signed the IPR agreement to date. OIDF process mandates that the contributors signs the agreement before being able to contribute anything to the WG. Unless you sign it, we cannot take up the comment to avoid the IPR contamination. As the result, the ticket was never created. If you have singed the IPR agreement and made a comment, I am very sure that ticket was created and dealt with. You could do it until couple of weeks ago. We had 45-days public review period. Did you comment in there? Bunch of comments came in and we are accommodating them. Also, I have to point out that to join the OIDF WG, you do not have to be an OIDF member. The only requirement is that you commit to the IPR agreement, that you will not go after the implementers for your Patents etc. for the implementation of the spec., that open source developers do not have to worry about being sued. As far as the Connect spec modification possibility is concerned, for editorial changes, we can still do without a problem. We may also still do some non-breaking changes if it is deemed necessary. FYI, the Connect WG is contemplating the documentation structure change as well, so that you know. > I brought the issue to the IETF because there is inappropriate use of > oauth in the wild. The draft submitted discusses the issue an describes a > possible simple fix. > > The WG has a wide range of choices to make. One of which is to refer to > OpenId Foundation. Another might be an errata to the security > considerations. The first decision is to put it on the next charter. > Yes. My top priority here is not to fork. At least align the claim names. Just saying alv instead of acr etc. does not make sense at all. > > I think you are 'jumping the gun' here. > I do hope that developers do not do 'jumping the gun', using slightly different claim names. > Phil > > On 2013-08-02, at 6:34, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not necessarily. Why would it be inappropriate? > > I call it NIH syndrome. > Respecting the work which is done outside is a good thing. > Just taking the content and taking a credit for it is a bad practice. > > Forking is also bad. > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
