Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ludwig Seitz <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:20 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ace] WGLC for draft-ietf-ace-authz
> 
> On 22/10/2018 21:09, Jim Schaad wrote:
> 
> >
> > * Registries -  I am wondering if we should think about re-writing a
> > couple of the registries.  As things stand it appears that the
> > application/ace+cbor content type is being used in 5 or 6 places.  It
> > might make more sense to have a registry for all of the CBOR
> > abbreviations that are being used in a single table and have multiple
> > columns for each of the different places were the content format is
> > being used.  This would make it easier to keep everything constant and can
> make re-use of integer values easier to see.
> >
> 
> Yes in the light of the ensuing discussion with Mike, Carsten and Olaf it is
> clear that the whole registry process needs a second (third, n-th) go-over.
> 
> I'd very much like to have all abbreviations in a single table, however some of
> them are in the new draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params, so I'm not sure on where
> to do the table, since I'd like to have the parameters from there in it.

While it has some "goodness" to have all of the abbreviations in a single table, in the end that single table is going to be a registry that is maintained by IANA.  This allows multiple documents to create the abbreviations and not have any overlap.  I would just leave the items in oauth-params there and let them be registered on their own.

Jim


\> 
> 
> /Ludwig
> 
> 
> --
> Ludwig Seitz, PhD
> Security Lab, RISE
> Phone [phone]