[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Simple Sign not so simple
> The main theme of your response seems to be that most things > are obvious for you and therefore no clarification or calling out > is warranted. I think you have to keep something in context....you're reporting this literally months after the public review, and after several of us apparently implemented this without confusion (or guessed correctly, whatever). I think the reasonable response to that is "if it's not broken...". I definitely put all of the XML comments in that category as they simply don't make any sense to me. But a couple of the parameter issues need to be cleaned up, and Jeff already volunteered to reopen the spec and shepherd it back through the process, so I think that's all that's needed. > As far as I understand, there is no intent to publish any implementation > guidelines - thus this material should go to the spec itself. No, just a lack of volunteers to work on them, as has been the case now for going on 3 years. But regardless, the issue isn't "should", it's whether it's a "must" and how soon. -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]