Re: [OAUTH-WG] Basic signature support in the core specification

[Dick Hardt <[e-mail]>]

That's a confusing answer Eve. Is it in the spec or pointed to from the spec? 

I think there is consensus that there are enough use cases that signatures need to be spec'ed -- the question is if the signature spec is in core or a separate spec.

For people that don't need signatures, having them separate keeps the core spec simpler. Having a separate spec enables other groups to reuse the signature mechanism without confusing their readers with the rest of the OAuth spec.

On 2010-09-24, at 1:37 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

> +1 for signature support in the core spec (which may look like normative pointers out to a separate spec module if it turns out there's wider usage for that module beyond OAuth).
> 
> 	Eve
> 
> On 23 Sep 2010, at 6:43 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> 
>> Since much of this recent debate was done off list, I'd like to ask people
>> to simply express their support or objection to including a basic signature
>> feature in the core spec, in line with the 1.0a signature approach.
>> 
>> This is not a vote, just taking the temperature of the group.
>> 
>> EHL
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> 
> Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> [phone]                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth