- changed status to open
Migration - Disposition of the mbj comments on the Migration draft 03
Editor has created a proposed dispostion of comments here for the Monday, Aug. 11 WG call discussion.
Also, there seems to be bunch of changes which are not associated with comments. They are not captured here.
Comments (27)
-
reporter -
reporter - changed component to Migration
-
mbj1 - I guess I'm OK if we explicitly define the term "Connect" as being a shorthand for "OpenID Connect" used in the context of this draft if we also note that the proper name of this family of standards is "OpenID Connect".
mbj22 - I guess I'm OK with then defining the term "Connect OP" as "OpenID Connect OpenID Provider".
mbj36 - You wrote: "Discuss. Editor feels that it was a bug of other specs to use ?rfc private=... directive in the XML source. It means that the draft is a private memo, which is not our intent. If this directive is removed, then this appears. It was the compromise of the Editor to put the text in. Editor welcomes a fixed version of the translater so that the proposed HTML can be produced. "
I disagree with this. It doesn't matter at all whether we use ?rfc private=... in the XML source. What matters is the output from that XML source. Using this prevents output that we don't want or need in the output, which is a good thing. It also means that we don't have to maintain a non-standard tool chain, which is also a good thing.
There's no compelling reason not to build and structure this spec in the same way we've built and structured the other OpenID Connect specs. But there is a compelling consistency argument to do it the same way, especially since it means we can use the standard versions of xml2rfc.
Also see issue
#945for more discussion on this point. -
The text will say that OpenID Connect is a new version of OpenID Authentication.
The rest will be resolved as recorded in the Disposition of Comments document.
-
addresses
#940- mbj4→ <<cset bfed0f482f22>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj5→ <<cset e2738dadfaca>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj6 through mbj16→ <<cset e5bdb00598b8>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj18→ <<cset 655bff071df9>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj20→ <<cset 818ae3fa3f37>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj21→ <<cset f91e28300811>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj23→ <<cset 78781b2a55ac>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj24→ <<cset c5c5f27c10b5>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj25→ <<cset f05c1dc69c72>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj26→ <<cset 519f3bdb82ce>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj28→ <<cset 820f4c80e439>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj29→ <<cset 2c414bba0407>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj31→ <<cset f767da239a48>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj32→ <<cset ff8ff2de1125>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj33, mbj34→ <<cset 40ad6257f555>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj35→ <<cset 3e4aa5a86ebb>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj-c1, mbj-c2→ <<cset eb665111a47a>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj-c4→ <<cset c1298c2ec11d>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj-c5→ <<cset 3cd20cc36473>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj-c6→ <<cset a7a3e55c738b>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj-c7→ <<cset 69777e0fcc9a>>
-
addresses
#940- mbj-c8→ <<cset 0c141a3f27fa>>
-
reporter - changed status to resolved
Checked that all the issues in the table was treated.
Closing.
- Log in to comment
I have recorded un-commented change proposals in the sheet 2.