Folks, please take generic discussion to the tools list. [1]
That's where it'll have some effect.
If you're only talking about what the oauth wg ought do that's
fine, but this reads as more generic.
Thanks,
S.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
On 05/16/2013 09:44 AM, Nat
I am by no means suggesting IETF to use Vim/emacs. That is counter
productive. I was merely pointing out that one has to decide the diff
policy wisely.
I like XMLMind's XML2RFC. Too bad it became commercial product only.
Intelligent diffs would work fine. However, there have been push back to
tha
I have already been using an approach like this for all of the drafts that I
edit, most notably the DynReg WG document and both the Introspection and
Chaining individual submissions. I run everything through my GitHub repository
here:
https://github.com/jricher/oauth-spec/
I use the issue trac
I am probably biased since I am the one who introduced ticket driven
version control to OIDF but it proved to be very valuable especially for
transparency purposes. Each changes are linked to the ticket so it is easy
to see why that change was made.
As to the comments v.s. mailing list relationshi
Hiya,
On 05/13/2013 09:04 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
> the OpenID Connect had gained some experience with using version control
> systems
> for editing specifications (and the use of issue trackers), see
> http://openid.bitbucket.org/. Based on a recent discussion in the IETF (amon
Hi all,
the OpenID Connect had gained some experience with using version control systems for editing specifications (and the use of issue trackers), see http://openid.bitbucket.org/. Based on a recent discussion in the IETF (among the working group chairs) I am wondering what your experience i
