Well … The argument from me was that there is a material change and that is the place of minor revisions. If this is an optional extension to the existing protocol we should not change the revision at all. If it is a minor change that requires a change to the base protocol rather than an extension document, I call that a revision. This seem logical enough to me but apparently I am in the minority, 1.0a it is then. As far as voting and discussion … I was under the impression that the 'Open' moniker sort of encouraged this. Must have been my confusion, I missed the early on discussions. I'll read back in the group some for more history.
— Matt On May 1, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Sergent wrote: > Let me additionally say that this discussion is dangerous and voting > is no way to design a protocol. What are the arguments in favor of > changing the version number, and what are the arguments against > changing it? I haven't personally seen any arguments in favor of > changing it that explained the rationale other than "of course you > should change it because you changed the version number on the spec". > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---