Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering

Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Thu, 22 March 2012 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32CE21F85CF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YcNeGlTI5tjq for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE43421F852A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AD3521B0E23 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG (imccas02.mitre.org [129.83.29.79]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2A421B0E3B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:35:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [129.83.50.12] (129.83.31.51) by IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:35:40 -0400
Message-ID: <4F6B62E5.4070500@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:35:33 -0400
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436642CE1A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436642CE1A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020508070906020300010604"
X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.51]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:35:42 -0000

I think it's a matter of politics and semantics: The real question is 
what do we officially build the IETF version off of? The WG can't 
officially start with the OIDF document due to IETF process, which makes 
sense. But there's nothing that says we can't start with Thomas's draft 
and be heavily influenced by the Connect draft, and make a new one as a 
real starting point for conversation.

If the Connect implementation still needs specific things, it can extend 
or profile the IETF version, and remain an OIDF document that 
normatively references the IETF document. This is where I see some real 
value -- the WG can focus on making a solid interoperable registration 
piece that different applications can extend and use as they see fit for 
the particulars of their use cases.

Does this pass muster with everyone?

  -- Justin

On 03/22/2012 01:26 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> I agree with John that submitting the OpenID Connect dynamic client 
> registration spec to the IETF would make no sense.  It is 
> intentionally specific to the requirements of the Connect use case.
>
> I sent the link to it only so people could compare them, if interested.
>
> -- Mike
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: John Bradley
> Sent: 3/22/2012 9:43 AM
> To: Phil Hunt
> Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
>
> It is a OIDF spec at the moment.  We don't have any plan to submit it 
> currently.
>
> If there is a WG desire for that to happen the OIDF board would have 
> to discuss making a submission.
>
> All in all I don't know that it is worth the IPR Lawyer time, as 
> Thomas has a quite similar ID Submission.
>
> Anything is possible however.
>
> John B.
> On 2012-03-22, at 1:24 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
>
>> Would the plan be for the Connect Registration spec to be submitted 
>> to IETF so they can become WG drafts?
>>
>> The spec seems like a good starting point.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> @independentid
>
> [The entire original message is not included.]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth