Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering

Hannes Tschofenig <> Thu, 20 October 2011 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C206B21F8C35 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PwmaxfOkEE8z for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 217C421F8C2D for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 17:24:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO []) [] by (mp003) with SMTP; 20 Oct 2011 19:24:02 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19NsftBOfBNjXHwif/Y0O+d7JRZomlD3L9kJaBVXq XE1bufWYlnmys7
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Hannes Tschofenig <>
In-Reply-To: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27EB414@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:18:41 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>, <> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27EB414@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
To: "Richer, Justin P." <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: OAuth WG <>, Barry Leiba <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:24:05 -0000

Certainly not everyone needs to pay attention to everything. We are, however, trying to determine whether there is a critical mass of interested persons for a given item in terms of reviews, document authors, implementers, and deployers. 

I do not see a problem at all with working on JWT within the OAuth working group. I thought that we had already decided in the past that the JSON signature & encryption work would go into JOES (earlier WOES) and the home for JWT is the OAuth working group. The area directors may have a different opinion but for the moment this is my working assumption. 


On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:

> I think it will be true that the whole working group won't be focusing on all documents at the same time, much in the same way that different subsets of our current WG have focused on things like the security document or SAML bindings. In this fashion, I believe we'll be able to pull expertise from different sectors to produce a family of documents that live in an ecosystem around OAuth. 
> For many of these documents, even though they're not directly OAuth pieces (like JWT), but where else should they live? This may not be The Way That IETF Does It (I'm honestly not sure), but in my opinion, as long as each document has a dedicated editor and at least some interaction/support with the group we can handle many of these smaller items.
> -- Justin
> ________________________________________
> From: [] on behalf of Barry Leiba []
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:05 PM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
>> do we have the band width to work on all these items, as some are
>> big and some are fairly small and contained. May have to have some
>> prioritized list of where people think these fit.
> Yes, exactly.  And one of the things we'd like to hear from all of you
> is what your priorities are... how you would prioritize the list.
> Barry, chair-like object
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list