Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation-00.txt]

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 01 October 2009 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1E728C19F for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.754
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQWg7er3FaSo for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5369528C17D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-247.cisco.com [64.101.72.247]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D60EE4007B; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:29:31 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4AC4E6FA.2020608@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:29:30 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)" <zeltsan@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B124EDE09F3D@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B124EDE09F3D@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:28:09 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

<hat type="chair"/>

On 10/1/09 10:24 AM, Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary) wrote:
> 
> This is reminder of the draft
> draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation-00.txt. The authors of the draft
> would like to get feedback on the proposed work (otherwise I should
> assume that there are no objections to accepting the proposal as a
> work item).

Our charter (i.e., our "contract" with the IESG) states:

   After delivering OAuth 1.1, the Working Group may consider
   defining additional functions and/or extensions...

Naturally we can discuss draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation (and other
specs) on this list.  And I don't think we absolutely must wait until
draft-ietf-oauth-authentication and draft-ietf-oauth-web-delegation are
delivered to the IESG before taking on additional WG items.  However, I
am at least hesitant to take attention away from the core specs (and
draft-hammer-oauth as informational documentation of "OAuth Core 1.0
Revision A" with errata) until we have consensus on the major issues
we've been discussing recently: mandatory signature algorithms, the
appropriate place to communicate client credentials, simplifying request
normalization, token expiration, improved error codes, interaction of
OAuth with HTTP caching, etc.  I also think it would be very helpful for
members of this list to complete reviews of the above-mentioned I-Ds
(perhaps after the document editor has had a chance to incorporate the
results of recent list discussion).

That said, if the group comes to consensus that it would like to accept
draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation as an official work item of the OAuth
WG, we could proceed with doing so.  If the authors would like the
chairs to issue a consensus call on this matter, please let us know.

Peter

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrE5voACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyuUQCgvmtiKTSsfpp9EoqQE38RYx+y
tycAn30XJx74n5/7LbX6gEzcTN45zCur
=+lG6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----