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

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Mon, 25 June 2012 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22DD21F845D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id efxC6DQU-PKX for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog106.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aob106.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822DD21F8468 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f177.google.com ([209.85.161.177]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob106.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+irEtmKWzMA5mp5bJQzcHu6Hv7vbqol@postini.com; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:51 PDT
Received: by ggcs5 with SMTP id s5so3331880ggc.36 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=bVGJgywR/2aqOSFQJCiCC1xNpv96xfmJHeqodU8geco=; b=PQqV5B/6e6FeTZfpLuea7sQiFrQKFITKpdsibLIgvlvaSqOW2cYs8BbLP6XcyMNBlw lTdkkFwkqLdZBIv0gjMLqka3grbrdKyp8egwnEB91O30+ZZOxiH3dg2rJjyZi2FcFw+Q 8bHLD9BMbQfrJrVp3fB9jEmeiAnqKEZmDyJEVrKMoGUqQrAzChBlplpryuIMc8g9lDw6 wOnY9SgMh58EX8LPMYrxkmpd968ltl64BGvFBcrCa9xfh7GYDyH8yVixM0sHDrs1KBCb VxnRXgQD0L8ZPLXgRDuQuKd9KdgSn0570YIC6ebB3FZLoS7XZTh5sjXGxPBgkETY+Ger I0uA==
Received: by 10.60.29.72 with SMTP id i8mr13134608oeh.26.1340648208649; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.174.98 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA20107E5A6@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
References: <4FE1C16D.6010602@cs.tcd.ie> <F606CA9D-9DB6-460E-BE7A-BC989A4AB25F@gmx.net> <CAC4RtVCrQ9yG6V_XwczXo_FvCkyCXJDfmrb-p0UX3KRW7Edx9A@mail.gmail.com> <4CD0B85C-C88D-4B52-81E4-5D53A25E60EF@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBEjDeoJzbxGwkTHsk2REv8+6GELywR7Sv-dsRm8LGw2A@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436656365A@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <B14B7AFA-C6A7-49EE-BC36-BDA8B0FE8814@gmx.net> <A756E768-991F-4A68-A18B-A1E99096BDC5@ve7jtb.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366565C12@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA20107E5A6@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:16:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTXGM3P4c20hB2d0TTF69R1_1WQoPpP0A6AHR47rA4FnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQKQeAkHI0P96dOnhBxANPqr8jmiAhth3/SjDCKUptPWKfs9UiSNN5OC/yoQe9ny2f7pA8
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:16:53 -0000

The sentiment of the WG seems to be leaning towards Specification
Required rather than Expert Review.

Barring any objections, I'll update the draft to reflect that and
publish a new version later today.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> 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: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Mike Jones
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:31 AM
>> To: John Bradley; Hannes Tschofenig
>> Cc: Barry Leiba; oauth@ietf.org
>> 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:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:36 AM
>> To: Hannes Tschofenig
>> Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org; 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
>> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> 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: oauth@ietf.org
>> >> 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
>> >> OAuth@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OAuth mailing list
>> >> OAuth@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth