Fwd: [specs-pape] Typo in the PAPE spec?

[John Bradley]

Paul

Examples are not normative.

Though if Yahoo who participated in the PAPE spec are confused by the  
example,  we should make some attempt to correct the example.

There is no immediate plan for another version of PAPE.

John B.
On 19-Jun-09, at 10:07 AM, Paul Madsen 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
>>