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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Many thanks for a nice short document!

I've a few questions though and suspect that a quick re-spin
might be needed, but let's see what the wg think about 'em
first.

(1) Why Informational? Everything else at that level seems to
be specified in a standards track or BCP level RFC, and IETF
Consensus is required. [1] I think you have to do this as
standards track. Did I miss something?

   [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xml

(2) Do you *really* want RFC or specification required for all
registrations?  I don't care, but there is a trend away from
that at the moment since its been found to discourage
registrations in a lot of cases. Perhaps expert review would
be ok?  No trying to push you one way or the other, I just
wanted to check.

(3) If answer to (2) is yes: Section 5.1 says "Specification
Required" but section 3 said "RFC Required" and those differ.
For example, an OASIS spec would not be ok if you say RFC
required. I don't know if you care, but you need to be
consistent. (Or else I've misread something;-)

(4) Isn't the template missing the reference to the RFC or
other specification that defines the URN?

(5) I don't get section 3, sorry;-) Can you give an example of
a class:id pair that'd be registered? Asking IANA to generate
the id part seems odd.

nits:

s3: s/generally referred/generally known/

s4: Might be worth pointing at the security considerations
section of draft-ietf-oauth-v2? I'd say that text would be
good to have read to know about the security considerations
for the use of these URNs, before you go making one up.

Cheers,
Stephen.