Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec

FYI, Eran, I'm going to hold off sending you proposed updated ABNF text for a few more days to let the discussions continue and consensus to build.  I'm currently mentally targeting sending proposed draft updates Monday.

				Best wishes,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:53 AM
To: Derek Atkins
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec

Derek - Thank you for this note. It is very much appreacited.

> From: Derek Atkins [mailto:derek@ihtfp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:28 AM

> Having said that, are you still willing and able to be the editor of 
> this draft and see it to its conclusion and publication?

Yes.

> If so, we will need to get another
> draft out by this Friday (June 15), and I suspect we'll need another 
> draft that solves the encoding issue (brought up by the ABNF 
> exercise), targeting Friday, June 29th.  Do you think you can make 
> these target dates (assuming that there is text for you to apply to the draft)?

There are two main open issues I'm aware of:

1. Error registry text

* The text provided by Mike Jones for section 7.2 is unlcear. I have provided feedback on the list and am waiting to hear back from Mike (or anyone else). Once I understand the actual intention of the new normative language, I will rework the text to reflect those changes. While I have strong objections to the error code registry in genreal, once decided, my only goal is to ensure the text is clear, complete, and reflects working group consensus. I do not have strong interest in how the working group resolves the rules around the registry as long as they are clear and practical. The current text for 7.2 is not.

* In the consensus call for the error registry, Hannes requested (or suggested, it wasn't clear given the context) that the registry be implemented by IANA using separate tables. This requires prose changes to instruct IANA as such. Without changes, IANA will create a single table which is not what was requested. I have not seen much discussion on this. I am waiting for the chairs to clarify this and for someone to provide text if this is still the case (I have sent multiple emails on this to the list).

2. ABNF

* Mike Jones is doing solid work progressing the ABNF forward with the guidance of Julian. I trust Julian blindly to guide the text to a successful conculsion and the working group seems enaged. As soon as new text is available, I will incorporate and publish. If a schedule conflict arises in which I am unable to push the ABNF changes, I have no objections to Mike Jones pushing a new draft with only ABNF related change after quick coordination (Mike can submit using my contact and I'll approve it within a few hours).

I also have a short list of nits and typos reported to the list and me directly over the past few weeks which are all insignificant to list.

I am available to publish another draft on or by 6/14, and again on or by 6/27 (or 6/30 after my travel). I will be travelling on the exact dates listed. I am hoping that these dates are flexible within a few days range. In order for me to publish a new draft by 6/14, I will need the changes a day before to prepare. If the changes are ABNF only, I can work with Mike Jones to arrange it without putting my travel restriction in the way. I need the chairs to clarify what is expected in each of these drafts and how they seek to resolve the issues around item #1 above to continue.

Again, thanks for the note.

EH
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth