[OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split

Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <romeda@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87043A6A88 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oL3S7KvjNUxV for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01B23A6A3C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so3512175qwc.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=7VR0ryMbhHO9kWC4qbAvnvN0lQ2dtQTUP3uRR3uYCvU=; b=DHQsGUkSX1FE0hIzV4MbB4oWsKk20qhC7EyMOqsGm3JFOnGVsgIo4hhO34ZqcjsJrh 8wyOxUORC/fd43/eOAn/PEgqNEr9JQrjl9683uWm6KclWjVgxeq7peowDw7tbDoxdH6L 59ydZw8iinzbhT+rUkxfqMRTou4+YJO7Ye+ss=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=liHF1HBVi7WgQU3AWiYJo/jha9DDXhX992Vbs7i/Yww9wGqJC2GbymiW7GnTgd/4lb bt+2ShKQ1eVI6cI6p/KnsjBoIRUw61AoZadfVAuafijS2fSOJwRQPh1WyuEva0I2TcK1 FhPxiTKG5FP1Bfhs4rSvP9B2GGG1keNRWXPWE=
Received: by 10.229.241.12 with SMTP id lc12mr8148216qcb.178.1287016360424; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.61.97 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:32:20 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik30oVX+AevGCZDHajjyrDnEVB=fp6rAdihkPFz@mail.gmail.com>
To: oauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 14 Oct 2010 00:32:10 -0000

Over the past few weeks, the working group debated the issues around
the introduction of signatures and the structure of the specification.
The working group seems to endorse the proposal to split the current
specification into two parts: one including section 5 (bearer token)
and the other including the rest (how to obtain a token), with an
additional specification covering signature use cases.

This serves as a call for consensus on the proposed editorial work.
Before we proceed with the changes, the chairs would like to ask if
anyone has any concerns or objections against this proposal.

In addition, the chairs are seeking a volunteer to take over the
bearer token specification (section 5) as editor.

Please submit your comments by Wednesday, October 20th.

- The OAuth Working Group Chairs