Mike if you subscribe to the mailing list your opinion counts towards consensus. I am sure you are well aware that the IETF doesn’t vote in WG.
Do you object to the specific initial values in the registry or the notion of having a IANA registry for the values. You are also free to contribute text to the authors or the WG if it is accepted as a work item. The question at this point is if it should this draft be the starting point for a work item in the Working group. We are a long way from approving a spec to go to the IESG for review. John B. > On Mar 3, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Mike Schwartz <m...@gluu.org> wrote: > > OAuth Guru's, > > I know you are all going to approve this AMR spec anyway, but I'd just like > to dissent. I think this specification is useless, and potentially harmful. > > Just as an example--two domains that use "face" as the amr probably have > totally different algorithms, sensitivities, training, and identity > management processes that contribute to the significance of this value. So > rather than interoperability, this standard just sets up domains for > miscommunication. > > If it doesn't serve interoperabilty, what use case does this standard solve? > > I think a bad quick and dirty solution is worse than no solution at all. If I > had a vote, I'd definitely vote against this one. > > - Mike > > > ------------------------------------- > Michael Schwartz > Gluu > Founder / CEO > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
