Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status update

I don't care about IPR.

I asked for it to be submitted as I-D because for now, I think we have consensus to move it forward in that form. We can always merge it into core, but for now, it is not part of core. Don't worry about this too much at this moment. What you need to do is get consensus that the proposal in the I-D is solid and has wide support. Then try to merge it in.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:12 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status update
> 
> I was wondering when you suggested to write an I-D about the request by
> reference (which started as mobile WebApp flow), you wanted it for the IPR
> reason or meant that it should be separate from the core. To cover both
> case, I have submit the I-D http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakimura-
> oauth-requrl/ "Request by Reference ver.1.0 for OAuth 2.0". I was referring
> to the subset of it, namely the introduction of "request_url" as the reference
> parameter for the request parameters to be "included."
> 
> =nat @ Tokyo via iPhone
> 
> On 2010/06/18, at 9:22, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> 
> > Not sure what you are referring to.
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Nat [mailto:sakimura@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:42 PM
> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> >> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status update
> >>
> >> What about the 'request_url' indirection (without sig and enc)?
> >>
> >> On 2010/06/18, at 6:36, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> With the exception of extensibility, I consider draft -08 to be
> >>> feature complete. This means that the draft contains all the
> >>> features and components needed and other then editorial work is
> >>> close to finished. I plan to finish work on the -09 draft by Mon or
> >>> Tue next week which will include the extensibility text, additional
> >>> editorial work, and resolution of the proposal to simplify the end-
> >>> user authorization endpoint. At that point, I intend to ask for an
> >>> interim last-call on the normative language (i.e. the implementation
> >>> details).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Note that this last-call isn't really a WG last call. The spec can c
> >>> hange after that. But it will be a useful milestone to figure out if
> >>> the draft's implementation details are stable and can be considered
> >>> complete.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All of this of course requires the approval of the chairs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> EHL
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OAuth mailing list
> >>> OAuth@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth