Re: [OAUTH-WG] A Proposal for Dynamic Registration

I think it's very important that we put *some* stake in the ground for 
the likes of OIDC, BB+, UMA, and the other higher-level protocols and 
systems that are looking toward us for Dyn Reg now. They weren't, 
previously -- all of these had mutually incompatible registration 
systems, but the work we've done so far with Dyn Reg has made a system 
that everyone can use. If we don't declare a baseline, and do so soon, 
then I fully believe that these groups will either fracture 
unnecessarily, or they'll ignore the IETF. Or both. I'll leave it to the 
chairs to decide if this gets tagged "experimental" or "standards", but 
I think that we're doing the world a disservice by not shipping what we 
have.

  -- Justin

On 08/12/2013 05:34 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
> On 08/06/2013 11:18 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>   - OAuth Dynamic Registration
>>   - SCIM-based OAuth Dynamic Registration
>>   - Software Statements for OAuth Dynamic Registration
>>
> This thread makes me think we should break out the EXPERIMENTAL
> track: spin two or more proposed solutions as EXPERIMENTAL. Let the
> various groups do what they're gona do (which they'll do anyway) and
> the the chips fall where they may.
>
> Tony is right in interpreting the discussions in Berlin as quite fractured.
> Pushing for standards track seems premature.
>
> OTOH the transition from EXPERIMENTAL to STANDARDS TRACK can
> be as quick as a couple of I-Ds describing the outcome of the
> implementation and deployment work that will happen anyway (as
> you so correctly observe) after which the WG decides how to move
> forward.
>
> Since bb+ and openidc will do dynreg anyway the document track
> doesn't really matter which means the usual "vendors won't implement
> unless its a real RFC"-argument doesn't apply here anyway.
>
>          Cheers Leif
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth