Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering

Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> Thu, 22 March 2012 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5459321F8585 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.34
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MNvA-SG6f25Y for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0979521F8578 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q2MIF3VX029070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:15:04 GMT
Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2MIF2D4021144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:15:02 GMT
Received: from abhmt115.oracle.com (abhmt115.oracle.com [141.146.116.67]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q2MIF1bN002009; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:15:01 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (/24.87.212.4) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:15:01 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_84D0DA69-C190-447C-A308-C3BE49285BA4"
From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F6B62E5.4070500@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:14:59 -0700
Message-Id: <225701EC-557E-4C05-BF7F-E9074B686422@oracle.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436642CE1A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4F6B62E5.4070500@mitre.org>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4F6B6C28.0065,ss=1,re=-2.300,fgs=0
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 22 Mar 2012 18:15:07 -0000

Am happy to start with Thomas's draft. 

Going forwards it seems hard to be 'heavily influenced' by things 'we cannot consider'.  :-)

Phil

@independentid
www.independentid.com
phil.hunt@oracle.com





On 2012-03-22, at 10:35 AM, Justin Richer wrote:

> I think it's a matter of politics and semantics: The real question is what do we officially build the IETF version off of? The WG can't officially start with the OIDF document due to IETF process, which makes sense. But there's nothing that says we can't start with Thomas's draft and be heavily influenced by the Connect draft, and make a new one as a real starting point for conversation. 
> 
> If the Connect implementation still needs specific things, it can extend or profile the IETF version, and remain an OIDF document that normatively references the IETF document. This is where I see some real value -- the WG can focus on making a solid interoperable registration piece that different applications can extend and use as they see fit for the particulars of their use cases. 
> 
> Does this pass muster with everyone?
> 
>  -- Justin
> 
> On 03/22/2012 01:26 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>> 
>> I agree with John that submitting the OpenID Connect dynamic client registration spec to the IETF would make no sense.  It is intentionally specific to the requirements of the Connect use case.
>> 
>> I sent the link to it only so people could compare them, if interested.
>> 
>> -- Mike
>> From: John Bradley
>> Sent: 3/22/2012 9:43 AM
>> To: Phil Hunt
>> Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
>> 
>> It is a OIDF spec at the moment.  We don't have any plan to submit it currently.  
>> 
>> If there is a WG desire for that to happen the OIDF board would have to discuss making a submission.
>> 
>> All in all I don't know that it is worth the IPR Lawyer time, as Thomas has a quite similar ID Submission.
>> 
>> Anything is possible however.   
>> 
>> John B.
>> On 2012-03-22, at 1:24 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
>> 
>>> Would the plan be for the Connect Registration spec to be submitted to IETF so they can become WG drafts?
>>> 
>>> The spec seems like a good starting point.
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> @independentid
>> 
>> [The entire original message is not included.]
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth