Re: [OAUTH-WG] Conclusion of 'OAuth Security Topics' Call for Adoption

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

A BCP is still assigned a RFC number.  

The intent is to have BCP number as well.  

EG BCP195’s current instance is RFC 7525.

The intent is to have a BCP series but the process is largely the same as I understand it.

John B.


> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> just for clarification: as far as I remember the proposal in Seoul was to turn the document into a BCP. 
> 
> Is this consistent with your expectation?
> 
> kind regards,
> Torsten.
> 
>> Am 20.02.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> earlier this month we issued a call for adoption of the OAuth security
>> topics draft, see draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security-topics-00, and the
>> response was quite positive on the list (as well as during the last f2f
>> meeting).
>> 
>> For this reason, we ask the authors to submit a WG version of the
>> document and to discuss new content for the document in preparation for
>> the next meeting.
>> 
>> Note that the intention of the document is to discuss security topics as
>> they relate to the work in the OAuth working group. As this initial
>> document already does, it describes a problem statement and outlines
>> various ways to mitigate the problems. I expect the working group to
>> decide which solution approach is most appropriate and to detail it (at
>> a specification level) in a separate document (some of those documents
>> already exist in the working group). This should help us make decisions
>> that are not just point solutions for specific problems but rather
>> consider the big picture.
>> 
>> Ciao
>> Hannes & Derek
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth