AX and Artifact Binding Charter Proposal

[John Bradley]

In practice it is a process issue.   Getting folks to agree on a  
registry process is a larger task than adopting the 9 attributes in  
common use.    I see whatever is in the spec becoming part of a  
registry.

I just don't want to hold up what we need for what we would like.

John B.
On 2009-11-13, at 2:47 PM, John Kemp wrote:

> Breno de Medeiros wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:05 AM, John Bradley <john.bradley at wingaa.com 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> +1 Fixing the missing policy URL and an agreement on a base set of  
>>> AX URL
>>> need to be a priority.
>>>
>>
>> Such agreement may be hard to achieve, but a set of URLs to support
>> discovery of supported attributes would be good. I am inclined to  
>> give
>> on on URL registry at this moment and support baking them into the
>> spec directly, for expediency reasons
>>
> "Baking them into the spec" just says that the specification  
> document itself is the registry, and that change requests are  
> handled by the spec. editors. (so in practice, what's the difference  
> between that and a separate web-page linked from the spec?)
>
> Cheers,
>
> - johnk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2486 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20091113/efc95a50/attachment.bin>