Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 23 April 2015 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A701B2E5A; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oY-jeLnoA_C6; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C17ED1B2E57; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3N364jO089960 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:06:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:06:04 -0500
Message-ID: <F56565A7-1C00-41BC-B29D-BF3B41FCED03@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL2PR03MB43373CFD4F80AF2C98D9A0BF5EE0@BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150406214830.8764.52235.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B52367E6-370F-4681-B4F5-F06C90F86959@yahoo.com> <89B75F57-55D8-4137-9F1C-9BD7C71AC855@nostrum.com> <BY2PR03MB4429FC8FABE03426B27663EF5FD0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <7CD93E42-BDD7-456F-8445-AE233A2897B7@mit.edu> <82268A04-588C-4D43-A638-8D99E76727DD@mit.edu> <CBC65420-441F-4073-84E0-6EDB7E06F54E@nostrum.com> <BL2PR03MB43373CFD4F80AF2C98D9A0BF5EE0@BL2PR03MB433.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/UjVNeLSh86qncYUiM0pW_9Patrw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:03:50 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@yahoo.com>, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "oauth-chairs@ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:06:19 -0000

On 22 Apr 2015, at 18:35, Mike Jones wrote:

> I'd be fine adding the BCP 100 reference.  I'd rather that we keep the 
> early registration procedures language.

That would work for me.

>
> 				-- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:31 PM
> To: Justin Richer
> Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg@ietf.org; Phil Hunt; <oauth@ietf.org>rg>; 
> Mike Jones; The IESG; oauth-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)
>
> On 21 Apr 2015, at 20:30, Justin Richer wrote:
>
>> Ben et. al,
>>
>> We’ve incorporated feedback into the latest draft:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28>
>>>
>
> I think that resolves all my comments save one:
>
> [...]
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.1 and 4.2 allow the designated expert to accept preliminary
>>>> registrations if they are confident a spec will be published.
>>>> Shouldn't
>>>> this follow the normal processes for preliminary registrations? Is
>>>> there
>>>> a way to walk back registrations if the spec isn't published after
>>>> all?
>>>
>>> I’ll defer to others’ expertise on the right text for the IANA
>>> section, this was imported from another example spec.
>>>
>
> BCP 100 (RFC 7120) describes the IANA early allocation procedures. You
> might consider a reference to that, so you can capture the processes 
> for
> walking back allocations that don't get finalized. Or, unless you want
> additional restrictions not in the BCP, you could leave out mention of
> early allocations completely, and let IANA deal with it according to
> standard procedures.
>
>
> [...]