[specs-pape] Typo in the PAPE spec?

[Nat]

Examples are not normative, but errata in the sense of "a slip in the  
book" is nice none the less.

There is no official move on the PAPE front right now, but may be in a  
near future.

=nat at Tokyo via iPhone

On 2009/06/19, at 23:07, Paul Madsen <paulmadsen at rogers.com> wrote:

> are examples normative? If not, is an errata necessary?
>
> Are there any plans for another PAPE version?
>
> paul
>
> John Bradley wrote:
>> The normative text is correct.
>>
>> It was always openid.pape.preferred_auth_level_types form Oct 2008  
>> when it was added to draft 5.
>> The bad example crept in in Draft 6 and went unnoticed.
>>
>> We will need to figure out a process for errata.
>>
>> Thanks for picking it up.
>>
>> John B.
>> On 17-Jun-09, at 1:03 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> In Section 5.1 of the PAPE Spec, there's a request parameter  
>>> defined called
>>>   openid.pape.preferred_auth_level_types
>>>
>>> however the example in the same section calls it
>>>
>>>   openid.pape.preferred_auth_levels
>>>
>>> Which one is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> specs-pape mailing list
>>> specs-pape at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-pape
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs-pape mailing list
>> specs-pape at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-pape
>>
> _______________________________________________
> specs-pape mailing list
> specs-pape at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-pape