[OpenID] CX proposal status

[David Recordon]

I think that's a fair assessment, though missing the piece that the proposal hasn't been making it clear enough that CX must build on top of existing OpenID specifications and that the working group should not be allowed to produce an indeterminate number of specifications. 

I'm looking forward to the call. 

--David 

----- "Nat Sakimura" <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Some members of spec council suggested rejection on the basis of (1) the scope being too wide (2) not getting enough support from the community, i.e., probalby on 4.2(c). Some proposers replied back to those points in specs-council ML that (1) being usecase driven, it may look that scope is wide but it really is not, (2) it has support from EU, Japan, and US members and suggested a call to close on this. The call is being planned right now. 
> 
> Would that be a fair summary? 
> 
> =nat 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Peter Williams < pwilliams at rapattoni.com > wrote: 
> 


> 


Can anyone summarize for folks here (in ~100 words) the status of the specs council discussion on the CX proposal? 




> 
> 
> 
> 



> _______________________________________________ 
> general mailing list 
> general at openid.net 
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general 
> 
> 
> 

> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat) 
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ general mailing list general at openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20090114/d91e9640/attachment-0002.htm>