Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 22 April 2015 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147741B2A1F; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3f6MCASDvv4C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9F01B2A24; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3MLVDqd059556 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:31:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Justin Richer" <jricher@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:31:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CBC65420-441F-4073-84E0-6EDB7E06F54E@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <82268A04-588C-4D43-A638-8D99E76727DD@mit.edu>
References: <20150406214830.8764.52235.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B52367E6-370F-4681-B4F5-F06C90F86959@yahoo.com> <89B75F57-55D8-4137-9F1C-9BD7C71AC855@nostrum.com> <BY2PR03MB4429FC8FABE03426B27663EF5FD0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <7CD93E42-BDD7-456F-8445-AE233A2897B7@mit.edu> <82268A04-588C-4D43-A638-8D99E76727DD@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/6Q1hNV5Kx7_TUncYP5pjJjBNkOo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:03:50 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@yahoo.com>, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "oauth-chairs@ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:31:34 -0000

On 21 Apr 2015, at 20:30, Justin Richer wrote:

> Ben et. al,
>
> We’ve incorporated feedback into the latest draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28>
>>

I think that resolves all my comments save one:

[...]

>>
>>>
>>> 4.1 and 4.2 allow the designated expert to accept preliminary
>>> registrations if they are confident a spec will be published. 
>>> Shouldn't
>>> this follow the normal processes for preliminary registrations? Is 
>>> there
>>> a way to walk back registrations if the spec isn't published after 
>>> all?
>>
>> I’ll defer to others’ expertise on the right text for the IANA 
>> section, this was imported from another example spec.
>>

BCP 100 (RFC 7120) describes the IANA early allocation procedures. You 
might consider a reference to that, so you can capture the processes for 
walking back allocations that don't get finalized. Or, unless you want 
additional restrictions not in the BCP, you could leave out mention of 
early allocations completely, and let IANA deal with it according to 
standard procedures.


[...]