Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 6/20/12 6:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Many thanks for a nice short document!
> 
> I've a few questions though and suspect that a quick re-spin
> might be needed, but let's see what the wg think about 'em
> first.
> 
> (1) Why Informational? Everything else at that level seems to
> be specified in a standards track or BCP level RFC, and IETF
> Consensus is required. [1] I think you have to do this as
> standards track. Did I miss something?
> 
>    [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xml

I think you're right that standards-track makes sense here.

> (2) Do you *really* want RFC or specification required for all
> registrations?  I don't care, but there is a trend away from
> that at the moment since its been found to discourage
> registrations in a lot of cases. Perhaps expert review would
> be ok?  No trying to push you one way or the other, I just
> wanted to check.

Expert review seems fine; lighter processes are better here. If folks
really want a spec, I'd prefer Specification Required to RFC Required or
IETF Review.

> (3) If answer to (2) is yes: Section 5.1 says "Specification
> Required" but section 3 said "RFC Required" and those differ.
> For example, an OASIS spec would not be ok if you say RFC
> required. I don't know if you care, but you need to be
> consistent. (Or else I've misread something;-)
> 
> (4) Isn't the template missing the reference to the RFC or
> other specification that defines the URN?
> 
> (5) I don't get section 3, sorry;-) Can you give an example of
> a class:id pair that'd be registered? Asking IANA to generate
> the id part seems odd.

It's also not clear to me what is meant by "The token URI that
identifies the registered component."

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/