Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering

"Richer, Justin P." <> Thu, 20 October 2011 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD1C21F89BA for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FJmUmhWYAYx for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0279E21F86AA for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A95DA21B05F9; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F78621B05BD; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG ([]) by IMCCAS02.MITRE.ORG ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:30:41 -0400
From: "Richer, Justin P." <>
To: Barry Leiba <>, OAuth WG <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
Thread-Index: AQHMjuZUxOCzG5jjVkyNkG8gNxk6H5WFg2oAgAAl6AD//8HAeA==
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:30:40 +0000
Message-ID: <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27EB414@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:30:42 -0000

I think it will be true that the whole working group won't be focusing on all documents at the same time, much in the same way that different subsets of our current WG have focused on things like the security document or SAML bindings. In this fashion, I believe we'll be able to pull expertise from different sectors to produce a family of documents that live in an ecosystem around OAuth. 

For many of these documents, even though they're not directly OAuth pieces (like JWT), but where else should they live? This may not be The Way That IETF Does It (I'm honestly not sure), but in my opinion, as long as each document has a dedicated editor and at least some interaction/support with the group we can handle many of these smaller items.

 -- Justin
From: [] on behalf of Barry Leiba []
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:05 PM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering

> do we have the band width to work on all these items, as some are
> big and some are fairly small and contained. May have to have some
> prioritized list of where people think these fit.

Yes, exactly.  And one of the things we'd like to hear from all of you
is what your priorities are... how you would prioritize the list.

Barry, chair-like object
OAuth mailing list