Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter

[Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>]

Folks, Eran,

My apologies for jumping ahead to far.  I misunderstood Blaine's email. I took the words "Revised Charter" to mean "Re-charter".

And usually when a WG says "re-charter", it means a big overhaul (which is why I mentioned Profiles, etc. etc.).

This is not the case here. I believe what we are doing today is a just a charter "clarification", "firm-up" or "clean-up".

So please ignore my posting :)

Thanks.

/thomas/


__________________________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:48 PM
> To: Thomas Hardjono; Blaine Cook; [e-mail]; oauth-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter
> 
> -1 on all of these.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> > Of Thomas Hardjono
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:20 AM
> > To: Blaine Cook; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter
> >
> > Thanks Blaine,
> >
> > This is a good start.  I have two suggestions and one request for an
> > additional
> > paragraph/bullet:
> >
> > (a) Openness to future items:
> >
> > I would like to see language that is more open (ready) to accept
> > future items (ie. those on the horizon and those unforeseen).
> >
> > For example, the Kerberos WG has just completed its re-charter
> > recently and had to address this same notion of limit/openness to
> > future items.  The language that was finally chosen reflects this
> > openness, I think.  Here are two
> > examples:
> >
> >     "Prepare and advance one or more standards-track specifications
> which...."
> > (does XYZ).
> >
> >     "Prepare, review, and advance standards-track and informational
> > specifications that..." (that does XYZ)
> 
> This defeats the purpose of a charter, which is meant to clearly define
> what the working group is scoped to do. I would like to see a charter
> as narrow as possible to help us focus on getting 2.0 done.
> 
> >
> > (b) Date for re-charter completion:
> >
> > Should you perhaps add a date for the completion of the re-
> chartering.
> > Say March 2012 (to coincide with the March IETF). Otherwise
> > re-chartering may drag on for sometime -- which is known to happen in
> > the IETF :-)
> 
> I have serious doubts about the need for this WG to continue. I for one
> am going to push for closing this WG as soon as the list of
> deliverables are complete. If there is new work, it belongs in a new
> WG.
> 
> > (c) Profiles of OAUTH2.0:
> >
> > I know that some folks want to use OAUTH2.0 as is (just the one
> spec),
> > but other folks (including myself) see the need to build additional
> > features on top the single OAUTH2.0 spec to make OAUTH2.0 work in
> other scenarios.
> > For lack of a better term, I use the term "profile" (to mean clearly
> > defined additions and narrowings of aspects listed in the main
> OAUTH2.0 spec).
> >
> > As such, I would like request the addition of the following paragraph
> > to the new charter:
> >
> >       Prepare, review, and advance standards-track and informational
> > specifications that define profiles of OAUTH2.0 for usage within
> > certain well- defined environments. These profiles are adjunct to the
> > OAUTH2.0 specification, and add optional capabilities to those
> already
> > defined in the
> > OAUTH2.0 main specification.
> 
> This is just a distraction. If you can demonstrate sufficient interest,
> you should have no problem creating a new WG at the conclusion of this
> one, or just submit and individual submission, which is probably the
> only practical way to go with most of these extensions (given the lack
> or implementation experience and small number of people interested in
> them).
> 
> 
> EHL