Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Wed, 22 April 2015 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0B01B2B71; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 5tEXOsZnqGt2; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0127.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCA81B2B49; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.92.19) by BL2PR03MB305.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.68.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.136.25; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:35:26 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.92.19) by BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.92.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.148.15; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:35:25 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.92.19]) by BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.92.19]) with mapi id 15.01.0148.008; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:35:25 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQcLNvziIlymLSiU21Cpn+02CTDJ1B2QkAgAAB4QCAAECyoIAAL0UAgBYLroCAAU9agIAAIo1Q
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:35:25 +0000
Message-ID: <BL2PR03MB43373CFD4F80AF2C98D9A0BF5EE0@BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150406214830.8764.52235.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B52367E6-370F-4681-B4F5-F06C90F86959@yahoo.com> <89B75F57-55D8-4137-9F1C-9BD7C71AC855@nostrum.com> <BY2PR03MB4429FC8FABE03426B27663EF5FD0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <7CD93E42-BDD7-456F-8445-AE233A2897B7@mit.edu> <82268A04-588C-4D43-A638-8D99E76727DD@mit.edu> <CBC65420-441F-4073-84E0-6EDB7E06F54E@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CBC65420-441F-4073-84E0-6EDB7E06F54E@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: nostrum.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-originating-ip: [64.134.226.84]
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR03MB433; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR03MB305;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL2PR03MB433153DB4882F98D6327F03F5EE0@BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51444003)(51704005)(13464003)(377454003)(24454002)(77096005)(15975445007)(102836002)(87936001)(40100003)(122556002)(76176999)(54356999)(5001770100001)(2656002)(86362001)(50986999)(86612001)(77156002)(62966003)(92566002)(19580395003)(93886004)(2900100001)(2950100001)(19580405001)(230783001)(2171001)(99286002)(33656002)(106116001)(46102003)(76576001)(74316001)(66066001)(1720100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB433; H:BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:BL2PR03MB433; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR03MB433;
x-forefront-prvs: 0554B1F54F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Apr 2015 23:35:25.5478 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR03MB433
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/DEfVIkewQ5bPfy-sjCvu79nMus0>
Cc: "draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@yahoo.com>, "oauth-chairs@ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@ietf.org>, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:35:29 -0000

I'd be fine adding the BCP 100 reference.  I'd rather that we keep the early registration procedures language.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:31 PM
To: Justin Richer
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org; Phil Hunt; <oauth@ietf.org>rg>; Mike Jones; The IESG; oauth-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)

On 21 Apr 2015, at 20:30, Justin Richer wrote:

> Ben et. al,
>
> We’ve incorporated feedback into the latest draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28>
>>

I think that resolves all my comments save one:

[...]

>>
>>>
>>> 4.1 and 4.2 allow the designated expert to accept preliminary
>>> registrations if they are confident a spec will be published. 
>>> Shouldn't
>>> this follow the normal processes for preliminary registrations? Is 
>>> there
>>> a way to walk back registrations if the spec isn't published after 
>>> all?
>>
>> I’ll defer to others’ expertise on the right text for the IANA 
>> section, this was imported from another example spec.
>>

BCP 100 (RFC 7120) describes the IANA early allocation procedures. You 
might consider a reference to that, so you can capture the processes for 
walking back allocations that don't get finalized. Or, unless you want 
additional restrictions not in the BCP, you could leave out mention of 
early allocations completely, and let IANA deal with it according to 
standard procedures.


[...]