[OAUTH-WG] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur strongly enough with John Scudder's comment about the IANA registry
that I'd like to discuss it.  Moreover, Section 4 of BCP 26 says:

   [...]  Newly minted policies,
   including ones that combine the elements of procedures associated
   with these terms in novel ways, may be used if none of these policies
   are suitable; it will help the review process if an explanation is
   included as to why that is the case.

Is that explanation available anywhere?  I think John's right, this is a
peculiar loophole, and it would be helpful to know why the WG thinks this is
necessary.  There's already a debate in progress about whether an I-D (which
expires) is viable in a Specification Required registry, and we're about to
charter a WG to revise BCP 26, so this is actually quite topical.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the flipside, I appreciate that so much good guidance was given to the
Designated Experts and even to us on how we should go about selecting them.  It
would be helpful if candidates could be nominated (if that hasn't already
happened) for approval by the IESG.

As rendered on the datatracker's HTML page, the numerous initial entries in
Section 8.1.2 are all run together.  Could we get them separated?

In Section 2, why is "resource_name" only RECOMMENDED?

In Section 2.1, second paragraph, the RECOMMENDED and SHOULD seem bare to me. 
Why would we allow anything other than what's specified, especially since BCP
47 prescribes a particular behavior?