Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 17 July 2012 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C6921F86B2; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.782
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.782 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12qHySIiUgg2; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69BE21F863E; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail56-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.254) by DB3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.3.84.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:31 +0000
Received: from mail56-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA33D4E04ED; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -29
X-BigFish: VS-29(zz98dI9371I936eI542M4015Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail56-db3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail56-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1342547669175765_20945; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.225]) by mail56-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8E7160048; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by DB3EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.3.87.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:20 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.222]) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.159]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.005; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:10 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNZEIp/Z9tuz7yc02oRy4cnST7lJctvLCQgAADgACAAAEJQA==
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:54:10 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436673760A@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4F2575CE.9040001@isode.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436638B7AD@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4F27C37C.1090008@isode.com> <4F843A22.4020908@isode.com> <4F843DA1.8080703@isode.com> <500546C5.6080102@isode.com>, <50054897.3070108@cs.tcd.ie> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943667370D7@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <50059598.3030304@gmx.de> <50059A95.7050904@isode.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436673743F@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5005A19A.9050104@gmx.de> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366737562@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5005A564.9000300@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <5005A564.9000300@gmx.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.76]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:53:49 -0000

The change and the reason for it were called out to the working group in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09594.html.

What additional text would you propose that the RFC editor add to explain the deviance from RFC 2617?

				Thanks,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:48 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: General Area Review Team; The IESG; draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

On 2012-07-17 19:39, Mike Jones wrote:
> Yes, the decision to remove normative references to HTTPbis was made during the public OAuth status call on Monday, July 9th, as the call participants wanted to be able to publish the RFC before HTTPbis is published as an RFC.

Well, it would have been nice to see this recorded in a mail to the mailing list.

> The sense on that call was that HTTPbis wouldn't be an RFC until near the end of this year or later.  If you have more data on that, it would be great to learn what the actual expected timeline is.

We all know well that it's extremely hard to make predictions like these, right?

So again: if you simply replace the dependency then you need to add prose explaining why you are using syntax that is not allowed per RFC 2617. I would think it's easier to leave things as they were (and as last-called both in the WG LC and the IETF LC), and let the spec sit in the RFC Editor queue a bit longer (it would still be approved as Proposed Standard, just not published).

Best regards, Julian