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

My logic is that your suggested organization is based on your personal preferences and what you consider core. If I applied my personal preference, half of core would be elsewhere. My point is that deciding signatures is the part belonging elsewhere is completely subjective to how important one think it is.

EHL

On 9/24/10 10:43 PM, "Dick Hardt" <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't follow your logic ... or perhaps I don't see why the spec needs to be written in more than two parts.

For example, the current spec does not specify the format of the token -- which keeps it simpler and straight forward. There are separate draft specs for standardizing the token. Similarly, I think the spec could be written to not include signatures, and put signatures into a different, reusable spec. If you would like help with that organization, I'll volunteer. :)

-- Dick

On 2010-09-24, at 7:24 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

I'm happy to do that. But I will be breaking the spec into more than two parts. Basically, I will be creating a version that does not force anyone to read anything they might not care about. Clearly, we shouldn't based editorial decisions on what you want to read :-)

EHL

On 9/24/10 5:21 PM, "Dick Hardt" <dick.hardt@gmail.com <x-msg://14/dick.hardt@gmail.com> > wrote:

-1 in core

+1 to being referenced in core and being a separate document

On 2010-09-23, 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
> OAuth@ietf.org <x-msg://14/OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth