Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec

Sounds good.

Any progress on a revised 7.2? I'd like to get clarity on that so we can agree on new text and close the issue along with the ABNF.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:18 PM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: On the OAuth Core Spec
> 
> FYI, Eran, I'm going to hold off sending you proposed updated ABNF text for
> a few more days to let the discussions continue and consensus to build.  I'm
> currently mentally targeting sending proposed draft updates Monday.
> 
> 				Best wishes,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Eran Hammer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:53 AM
> To: Derek Atkins
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec
> 
> Derek - Thank you for this note. It is very much appreacited.
> 
> > From: Derek Atkins [mailto:derek@ihtfp.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:28 AM
> 
> > Having said that, are you still willing and able to be the editor of
> > this draft and see it to its conclusion and publication?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If so, we will need to get another
> > draft out by this Friday (June 15), and I suspect we'll need another
> > draft that solves the encoding issue (brought up by the ABNF
> > exercise), targeting Friday, June 29th.  Do you think you can make
> > these target dates (assuming that there is text for you to apply to the
> draft)?
> 
> There are two main open issues I'm aware of:
> 
> 1. Error registry text
> 
> * The text provided by Mike Jones for section 7.2 is unlcear. I have provided
> feedback on the list and am waiting to hear back from Mike (or anyone else).
> Once I understand the actual intention of the new normative language, I will
> rework the text to reflect those changes. While I have strong objections to
> the error code registry in genreal, once decided, my only goal is to ensure the
> text is clear, complete, and reflects working group consensus. I do not have
> strong interest in how the working group resolves the rules around the
> registry as long as they are clear and practical. The current text for 7.2 is not.
> 
> * In the consensus call for the error registry, Hannes requested (or
> suggested, it wasn't clear given the context) that the registry be
> implemented by IANA using separate tables. This requires prose changes to
> instruct IANA as such. Without changes, IANA will create a single table which
> is not what was requested. I have not seen much discussion on this. I am
> waiting for the chairs to clarify this and for someone to provide text if this is
> still the case (I have sent multiple emails on this to the list).
> 
> 2. ABNF
> 
> * Mike Jones is doing solid work progressing the ABNF forward with the
> guidance of Julian. I trust Julian blindly to guide the text to a successful
> conculsion and the working group seems enaged. As soon as new text is
> available, I will incorporate and publish. If a schedule conflict arises in which I
> am unable to push the ABNF changes, I have no objections to Mike Jones
> pushing a new draft with only ABNF related change after quick coordination
> (Mike can submit using my contact and I'll approve it within a few hours).
> 
> I also have a short list of nits and typos reported to the list and me directly
> over the past few weeks which are all insignificant to list.
> 
> I am available to publish another draft on or by 6/14, and again on or by 6/27
> (or 6/30 after my travel). I will be travelling on the exact dates listed. I am
> hoping that these dates are flexible within a few days range. In order for me
> to publish a new draft by 6/14, I will need the changes a day before to
> prepare. If the changes are ABNF only, I can work with Mike Jones to arrange
> it without putting my travel restriction in the way. I need the chairs to clarify
> what is expected in each of these drafts and how they seek to resolve the
> issues around item #1 above to continue.
> 
> Again, thanks for the note.
> 
> EH
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 