Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth specs in IETF last call

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 24 January 2012 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79AF311E809B for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:26:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.818, 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 SWAqxIX20jp0 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9823D11E8086 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2012 23:26:03 -0000
Received: from p5DCC2B6A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.43.106] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2012 00:26:03 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18K1W9LphkKVQQZ+ATDPbXJzzYRebH0AhGVYUN2L3 IHlGRAPHP8r6FS
Message-ID: <4F1F3DFA.7050506@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:25:46 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366375EB9@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4F1D9B57.1030501@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4F1D9B57.1030501@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth specs in IETF last call
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:26:05 -0000

On 2012-01-23 18:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/23/12 10:11 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
>> FYI, the OAuth Core and Bearer specifications have reached IETF last
>> call status - the last step before becoming RFCs.  See the following
>> notes from the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).
>
> Well, "last step" might be a bit optimistic. :)
>
> For those who aren't familiar with the process, the next steps are:
>
> 1. IETF Last Call, which lasts two weeks. This is essentially your last
> opportunity to provide feedback!
>
> 2. During IETF Last Call, the documents will be reviewed by several
> cross-area teams within the IETF, including folks like the "GEN-ART"
> review team and the AppsDir. We'll expect at least some feedback from
> those teams. And at this stage anyone in the Internet community can
> provide feedback, too.
>
> 3. After IETF Last Call, this WG's document editors will work to address
> any feedback we've received.
>
> 4. The documents will then be scheduled for disussion during an IESG
> telechat. Before the telechat, all the members of the Internet
> Engineering Steering Group will review the specs and also provide
> feedback. If there are "DISCUSSES" and "COMMENTS" lodged then the
> document editors will need to address those (often in concert with the
> WG chairs). If some of those issues are substantive, the editors and
> chairs might bring those issues back to the WG for more discussion.
>
> 5. Assuming the documents are approved by the IESG, they will then be
> handed off to the RFC Editor team for final copy editing, proofreading,
> reference checking, etc.
> ...

6. ...and then will have to wait until all normatively referenced drafts 
are ready, too.

Best regards, Julian