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

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:31 PM
> To: Justin Richer
> Cc: [e-mail]; Phil Hunt; <[e-mail]>; 
> Mike Jones; The IESG; [e-mail]
> 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.
>
>
> [...]