Et tu, Phil? Do Sam and Phil represent the general consensus here or a vocal minority?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: > I agree. The title was useful as a working title as it conveyed a lot of > useful intent information to members of the WG familiar with the technology. > > I don’t think the broader community understands OASIS and the broader > realm nor should they care. > > At minimum it suggests they need to go read about STS’s before > implementing the draft - which should not be needed. > > Phil > > @independentid > www.independentid.com > phil.h...@oracle.com > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Longtime reader / implementer, first time poster. I wanted to comment > specifically on the question of the title: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Brian Campbell > <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: > > The title is something I'm less open to changes on. Honestly, I'm really > partial to it. I described it as "really really important" on slide 7 of > the > IETF 93 presentation about token exchange and tried to brake it down > humorously in a recent identity conference presentation. I've had numerous > positive comments about it from people who appreciate the little touch of > humor. I anticipate there may be some push-back in later stage reviews on > the unexpanded acronym but I'll cross that bridge when/if I come to it and > look to find some compromise. > > > While I too appreciate the little touch of humor, the point the RFC > process is not humor, the point is to make something that conveys > information in an accessible and unambiguous way. I did not know the > acronym "STS" when I first glanced at this title, and even if I did > know the acronym I'm not sure that the title would immediately convey > what the document was about in its current form. This will be > detrimental to the accessibility of the document if non-expert users > have to go perform an internet search for an acronym before they've > even begun to read the document. > > RFCs are generally a bit dry and sprucing them up with a bit can be > tempting. I appreciate that the joke is clever — but the less of our > own quirky and fun personalities we put into RFCs the better it will > be for the series and the clearer they will be for the developers who > will have to implement them. > > Thanks, > Sam > > > > -- > Sam Whited > pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
