Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] R: draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04

I disagree that the current spec is a good starting point - the issues I've
raised have been ignored, and the spec is now much more complicated from
both sides of the implementation fence.
On May 7, 2012 3:17 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

>  Walter,
>
> I'm not sure what the full set of issues will be, but I only have a couple
> of small edits queued for -05 at present (one being "template" should be
> "href" in the example at the end of 4.2 that you pointed out to me
> privately).  We've already worked through a number of issues to get to this
> point, so there may not be a lot of changes needed.  I'll not dismiss the
> possibility that there are editorial issues, but I hope we've resolved most
> of the technical details.
>
> We probably still need to have the discussion of keeping CORS and what
> additions are needed to the security section.  We've made a few changes
> there already, but I'm not sure if it still fully addresses some of the
> privacy concerns.
>
> Paul
>
> On 5/7/2012 5:37 AM, Goix Laurent Walter wrote:
>
>  I also support this draft as a way forward for the discussion that I
> think captures the essence of both philosophies. ****
>
> ** **
>
> If such basis is agreed what are the major pending issues?****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards****
>
> Laurent-walter****
>
> ** **
>
> *Da:* apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>]
> *Per conto di *Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
> *Inviato:* venerdì 4 maggio 2012 21.50
> *A:* Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org; apps-discuss@ietf.org
> *Oggetto:* Re: [apps-discuss] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04****
>
> ** **
>
> I support this doc being adopted as starting point for WG discussion.****
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Gonzalo****
>
> ** **
>
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  The above-named draft has been offered as the recommended path forward
> in terms of converging on a single document to advance through appsawg.
> The conversation I saw this week in that regard has seemed mostly positive.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Please review it, or at least the diff, and indicate your support or
> objection on apps-discuss@ietf.org to adopting this one as the common
> path forward. We would like to make a decision about which one to begin
> advancing in the next week or two.****
>
>  ****
>
> Have a good weekend!****
>
>  ****
>
> -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair****
>
>  ****
>
>  _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>