IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol: Next Steps?

Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> Thu, 11 September 2014 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326381A895F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjH7zDLTmdSd for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 282F11A6FDB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s8BFtV6R000548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:55:32 GMT
Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8BFtUB9009994 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:55:31 GMT
Received: from abhmp0017.oracle.com (abhmp0017.oracle.com [141.146.116.23]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8BFtUsU017897; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:55:30 GMT
Received: from [192.168.1.125] (/24.86.29.34) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:55:29 -0700
References: <5410E3AF.3030806@gmx.net> <d9523ba290534a9493fc805980f4365d@BLUPR03MB309.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <9E856DCC-79F4-421B-A6EB-1438115843CB@mitre.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <9E856DCC-79F4-421B-A6EB-1438115843CB@mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA4C1102-5092-4660-8BF8-51E53B0CD26D@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:55:25 -0700
To: "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/fvldGZRL1ANyXbTlD6_GsWVevvE
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol: Next Steps?
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 11 Sep 2014 15:55:35 -0000

Interesting. The definitions in that don't correspond with what ADs and other groups are doing. 

I heard httpbis using experimental as a placeholder for a draft that didn't have full consensus to bring back later. 

That was the feel I had in Toronto-that we weren't done but it was time to publish something. 

Reading the actual definition i would say neither fits. Ugh. 

Phil

> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:01, "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> According to the guidelines here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
> 
> And the discussion in Toronto, it's clearly experimental.
> 
> -- Justin
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Is "experimental" the correct classification? Maybe "informational" is more appropriate as both of these were discussed. 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM
>> To: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol: Next Steps?
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> in response to the discussions at the last IETF meeting the authors of the "Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol"
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-05 have changed the document type to "Experimental".
>> 
>> We need to make a decision about the next steps for the document and we see the following options:
>> 
>> a) Publish it as an experimental RFC
>> 
>> b) Remove it from the working group and ask an AD to shepherd it
>> 
>> c) Remove it from the working group and let the authors publish it via the independent submission track.
>> 
>> In any case it would be nice to let folks play around with it and then, after some time, come back to determine whether there is enough interest to produce a standard.
>> 
>> Please let us know what you think!
>> 
>> Ciao
>> Hannes & Derek
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email