+1 makes sense Am 16.01.2013 um 21:07 schrieb "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org>:
> +1, it's a non-normative terminology change that aligns it with related > efforts. It should be a simple text replace operation. > > -- Justin > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [oauth-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Mike Jones > [michael.jo...@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:51 PM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Principal -> Subject in Assertions spec? > > In writing the proposed interoperability text for the Assertions > specification, I noticed that the Assertions spec uses the term “Principal” > to refer to the subject of the assertion, whereas both the SAML and JWT > profiles use the term “Subject” for this same concept. I propose that at the > same time we add the Interoperability statement, we also change the uses of > the term “Principal” to “Subject” in the assertions spec so that it’s > terminology usage is more consistent with the two profile specs using it. > > Thoughts? > > -- Mike > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
