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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 17 July 2012 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 C491221F85F2 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.930, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0o0MS1YxEi6V for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5889721F8551 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2012 17:48:46 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp069) with SMTP; 17 Jul 2012 19:48:46 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Q24UE9bEQL1mnNf9TwMMGlwZI5izm3UTl1D6zUk 6J0dA/CAWImv7w
Message-ID: <5005A564.9000300@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:48:20 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@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>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366737562@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
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 17:48:12 -0000

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