[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #940: Migration - Disposition of the mbj comments on the Migration draft 03 (openid/connect)

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Sat Aug 9 21:20:20 UTC 2014

You wrote: "Discuss. Editor feels that it was a bug of other specs to use <?rfc private=""""> directive in the XML source. It means that the draft is a private memo, which is not our intent. 
If this directive is removed, then this appears. It was the compromise of the Editor to put the text in. Editor welcomes a fixed version of the translater so that the proposed HTML can be produced. "

I disagree with this.  It doesn't matter at all whether we use <?rfc private=...> in the XML source.  What matters is the output from that XML source.  Using this prevents output that we don't want or need in the output, which is a good thing.  It also means that we don't have to maintain a non-standard tool chain, which is also a good thing.

There's no compelling reason not to build and structure this spec in the same way we've built and structured the other OpenID Connect specs.  But there is a compelling consistency argument to do it the same way, especially since it means we can use the standard versions of xml2rfc.

I feel strongly enough about the consistency argument and using the standard xml2rfc tool chain that I will vote against this spec moving forward unless this is fixed, and try to convince others that they should likewise oppose the spec moving forward on these grounds until this is fixed.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 2:30 AM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Issue #940: Migration - Disposition of the mbj comments on the Migration draft 03 (openid/connect)

New issue 940: Migration - Disposition of the mbj comments on the Migration draft 03 https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/940/migration-disposition-of-the-mbj-comments

Nat Sakimura:

Editor has created a proposed dispostion of comments [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/167EB4gRb3LqPU6-tR15VaPDzv66zhuxqNrEpY6DuGx0/edit?usp=sharing) for the Monday, Aug. 11 WG call discussion. 

Also, there seems to be bunch of changes which are not associated with comments. 
They are not captured here. 

Responsible: Nat
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list