+1 to Eran and David's comments. Let's not get distracted when we are close to
finalizing. I suggest revising the charter once we are done with 2.0 unless
there is a process reason for revising the charter to complete 2.0.
-- Dick
On 2011-04-28, at 12:22 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> I agree wit
I agree with Eran as well that the focus should be on finalizing 2.0
and then future work can occur in new working groups. We're so close!
I keep telling people throughout the industry that the spec hasn't
changed technically in months but they keep asking when it's going to
be a final RFC.
On Th
Folks, Eran,
My apologies for jumping ahead to far. I misunderstood Blaine's email. I took
the words "Revised Charter" to mean "Re-charter".
And usually when a WG says "re-charter", it means a big overhaul (which is why
I mentioned Profiles, etc. etc.).
This is not the case here. I believe wh
-1 on all of these.
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Thomas Hardjono
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:20 AM
> To: Blaine Cook; oauth@ietf.org; oauth-...@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter
>
> Thanks
Blaine,
Looks very good to me.
A small editorial suggestion: Rather then say that "OAuth consists of"
mechanisms, I would suggest saying "OAuth supports" these mechanisms.
I alsonote the omission of the use cases. I suggest adding an item,
"Submit OAuth Use Cases."George, Torsten, and Z
Thanks Blaine,
This is a good start. I have two suggestions and one request for an additional
paragraph/bullet:
(a) Openness to future items:
I would like to see language that is more open (ready) to accept future items
(ie. those on the horizon and those unforeseen).
For example, the Kerbe
