Re: [OAUTH-WG] Document Management Issue (Signatures)

I think it would also help with handling revisions over time. Changes to signature specifications, etc over time, won't impact the core specification -- keeping it stable and well understood.

Maybe a compromise is to include the 1.0a stuff in the core spec as "legacy" (since it was in the 1.0 core), but reference a normative external signature extension specification document for 2.0 on.

Phil
phil.hunt@oracle.com

On 2010-09-27, at 9:43 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> I wonder whether the question of "signature in the main specification or in a separate document" does not really matter. It is purely a matter of document management style.
> 
> The important question is whether there will be a **mandatory to implement** or **mandatory to use** someone in the document set. Mandatory to use is typically hard to enforce unless there is only one approach possible. This does not seem to be the case.
> 
> So, everything then boils down to the question: What is mandatory to implement? (in this specific case with regard to security)
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth