On 2010-02-03, at 12:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > <hat type='chair'/> > > On 2/3/10 12:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > >> Wanting to discuss technical details when there does not seem to be >> consensus on the problem we are solving was my Titanic reference. > > Remember, these interim meetings are > intended to air open issues and get us closer to agreement on problems, > terminology, architecture, use cases, requirements, and possible > technical solutions, all as a way of preparing for the in-person meeting > in Anaheim.
That was what I thought the calls were for, which is why I did not think Eran's desire to add discussion of a specific technical issue was going to be well received. There are a number of us that are new to the WG and we likely will make little progress until we are all relatively on the same page on what problem(s) we are solving. I certainly hope we don't need to spend much time on these topics, but some time will be invaluable in my opinion. Speaking for myself, I am still confused why the spec has been broken into two parts and what is intended in the Authentication document. I am just now starting to try and grok what the UMA people want to solve. -- Dick _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
