Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I agree there but does that have anything to do with the track of this
doc (standards vs info)? Isn't that defined in the doc itself? i.e.

"The registration procedure for new entries requires a request in the
   form of the following template and is subject to Expert Review per
   RFC 5226 [RFC5226]."

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'd argue that the registration regime chosen should be flexible enough to
> permit OASIS or OpenID specs to use it. Otherwise, as someone else pointed,
> people will work around the limitation by using unregistered values - which
> helps no one.
>
> -- Mike
>
> ________________________________
> From: Barry Leiba
> Sent: 6/21/2012 12:31 PM
>
> To: Stephen Farrell
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
>
>>> Stephen:
>>> Yeah, I'm not sure Standards Track is needed.
>>
>> On this bit: I personally don't care, except that we don't have to do it
>> twice
>> because someone later on thinks the opposite and wins that argument, which
>> I'd rather not have at all  (My one-track mind:-) Doing the 4 week last
>> call means
>> once is enough. But I'm ok with whatever the WG want.
>
> Well, it's not a 4-week LC, but a 2-week one.  Anyway, yes, I see your
> point, and I've done that with other documents.  Better to make it
> Standards Track for now, note in the shepherd writeup that
> Informational is probably OK, and let the IESG decide.
>
> b
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>