On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > >> >> Oh, I wouldn't expect it to stop. The group has a bunch of unrelated stuff >> grouped into one document. There seems to be consensus to do that, but it >> still runs counter to the conventional wisdom. > > Can you point to specific parts that should not be grouped together?
Sure, to give one example, I would make the device flow a separate spec immediately. That seems only distantly related to other things in the spec, and may not be really necessary by the time the standard matures. I mean, Facebook engineers have already said they felt comfortable shipping certain pieces of the spec because they seem stable. Why isn't the group hammering out nits in those pieces, writing test suites, and declaring victory? You can always add more later. Anyway, I've said my piece on this point quite enough. Many new readers will probably bring it up, though. That shouldn't be surprising. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
