[Openid-specs-ab] Agenda addition for today's call
tonynad at microsoft.com
Mon Jun 20 17:59:22 UTC 2011
So is it really necessary to have a migration? I assume that if it's really needed it would be optional in a separate set of specs.
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Nat Sakimura; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Agenda addition for today's call
Thanks Nat. I'd add to this list:
- IdP Discovery
- OpenID 2.0 Migration
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net]<mailto:[mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net]> On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 10:52 AM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Agenda addition for today's call
I would like to propose the following for today's spec call.
1. Status check of each sub-specs.
Report from each sub-spec editors.
2. Whether or not to add non-normative text for Bindings
Currently, we have very little non-normative text in the Bindings and the reader has to go refer the Core and OAuth spec very often.
Perhaps including some non-normative text instead of just referencing would improve the readability.
3. Whether or not to merge Code Binding and Artifact Binding
In fact, the are only a few lines of difference now. Perhaps can we merge them together?
4. Separating out the session spec?
Right now, session spec is included in the core. A while ago, there seems to have been some talk around separating it out again.
I would like to close on this.
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-ab