Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02

[Eran Hammer <[e-mail]>]

This boils down to whether the registration template can contain all the detailes required for interoperability or not. If not, you need a specification.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:31 AM
> To: John Bradley; Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: Barry Leiba; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
> 
> I agree that Specification Required would be fine.  I'd rather that there be a
> publicly available specification defining the URN than one potentially
> available only to the expert reviewers.
> 
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Bradley [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: Mike Jones; [e-mail]; Barry Leiba
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
> 
> I think Specification required is fine.  It allows a OIDF or OASIS spec to be
> used as the basis for the registration withh appropriate expert review.
> 
> John B.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 2012-06-23, at 8:31 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > the point is not that other groups, like OASIS, cannot use them. They can
> use the extensions.
> >
> > The question is more what process and documentation is needed to allow
> OASIS (and others) to define their own extensions.
> >
> > So far, OASIS had not been interested for any extension (at least from
> what I know). The OpenID community, to which you also belong, had defined
> extensions (and brought some of them to the IETF) but had been quite
> careful themselves to ensure proper review and documentation.
> >
> > So, if you look at the most important decision points then you have:
> >
> > 1) do you want a requirement for a specification, i.e., when someone
> defines an extension do you want it to be documented somewhere?
> >
> > 2) do you envision a review from experts (e.g., checking whether the stuff
> makes any sense or conflicts with some other already available extensions)?
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226 provides a good discussion about this
> topic.
> >
> > If the answer to the above-listed questions is YES then you probably at
> least want 'Specification Required' as a policy.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> >
> > On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> >
> >> I'd argue that the registration regime chosen should be flexible enough to
> permit OASIS or OpenID specs to use it. Otherwise, as someone else
> pointed, people will work around the limitation by using unregistered values
> - which helps no one.
> >>
> >> -- Mike
> >>
> >> From: Barry Leiba
> >> Sent: 6/21/2012 12:31 PM
> >> To: Stephen Farrell
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
> >>
> >>>> Stephen:
> >>>> Yeah, I'm not sure Standards Track is needed.
> >>>
> >>> On this bit: I personally don't care, except that we don't have to
> >>> do it twice because someone later on thinks the opposite and wins
> >>> that argument, which I'd rather not have at all  (My one-track
> >>> mind:-) Doing the 4 week last call means once is enough. But I'm ok with
> whatever the WG want.
> >>
> >> Well, it's not a 4-week LC, but a 2-week one.  Anyway, yes, I see
> >> your point, and I've done that with other documents.  Better to make
> >> it Standards Track for now, note in the shepherd writeup that
> >> Informational is probably OK, and let the IESG decide.
> >>
> >> b
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth