Killing time

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

Good wording changes.  I like "expires_in" too.

Paul?


On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Carl Howells wrote:

> Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Here's a draft:
> >
> >    http://openid.net/specs-notime.bml
> >
> > Once I get your approval, and nobody else objects, I'll copy that to the
> > real specs.bml page.
>
> A couple more things...
>
> First, it probably should be clarified that replace_after_s (or
> expires_in, if it's renamed) is an integer represented in human-readable
> base 10.  That's probably the obvious thing to assume, but it's better
> to make it explicit.
>
> Second, I'd change the wording for the note on that field, regardless of
> what it's named, to something like this:
>
> "The server should not honor this association after this number of
> seconds has passed.  The consumer should create a new association at
> that point instead of attempting to re-use this one."
>
> The use of "should not" is a bit awkward as it's RFC-like language, but
> I think it's closest to the intended meaning without sounding as vague
> as "probably won't", which was my second choice for the wording.
>
> Carl
>
>