Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 01 February 2017 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 549EE12945D; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:03:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 Qul2JA77xUCq; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:03:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C26A1289C4; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:02:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98395BE2C; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:02:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oa2EHYzA_H_h; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:02:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B75C7BE4C; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:02:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1485961377; bh=aVYcThReaQvW7MmmH4hlM2bJzTTxZ1bSCTBBQzIyvNc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ADl33WV4gPK8ORh4OtrDOFzwkUNVJJ3uGZCoJrJyRfIofVSXIjI0bv/m3Ij+SpXSc r1oJ5I49fM52Na9XKedBxX1Tvjqub8q/NhRWPMfxnGbhiI8gihb2ooLLRNZgY7obBs DIDf2SSYqMqhk38ZjsNzwdlcrbIe5kKkV219Nack=
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <148587998454.2480.4991718024003414319.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c0e62125-14e6-2390-87e3-72a2422f732f@bogus.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <d9d0f5ae-6dcd-98cc-6113-96e937332b60@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:02:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c0e62125-14e6-2390-87e3-72a2422f732f@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ilDmO9WqvMoBUJUogbtxJPjVIqTSsrn7k"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Bna0B9LBBulHQIdt1i4U7eRwfLY>
Cc: oauth-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Feb 2017 15:03:02 -0000


On 01/02/17 14:58, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 1/31/17 8:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This specification seems to me to break it's own
>> rules. You state that registrations should include
>> a reference to a specification to improve interop.
>> And yet, for the strings added here (e.g. otp) you
>> don't do that (referring to section 2 will not
>> improve interop) and there are different ways in
>> which many of the methods in section 2 can be done.
>> So I think you need to add a bunch more references.
> 
> Not clear to me that the document creating the registry needs to adhere
> to the rules for further allocations in order to prepoulate the
> registry. that is perhaps an appeal to future consistency.

Sure - I'm all for a smattering of inconsistency:-)

But I think the lack of specs in some of these cases
could impact on interop, e.g. in the otp case, they
quote two RFCs and yet only have one value. That seems
a bit broken to me, so the discuss isn't really about
the formalism.

S.


>>
>>
>>
> 
>