[OAUTH-WG] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on charter-ietf-oauth-05-04: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.  Responses inline w/ [DC]

On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 7:52 AM Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-oauth-05-04: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-oauth/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for preparing this updated version of the charter.
>
> Please find below some few comments:
>
> # Agents
>
> CURRENT:
>   As automated agents increasingly act on behalf of users, organizations,
> or
>   both, these delegation patterns become increasingly involved and complex.
>
> ## Does the WG intend to work on identifying specifics of such schemes?
>

[DC]  yes

>
> ## Does the WG intend to publish applicability documents to show how
> existing
> OAuth Framework can be used in such contexts?
>

[DC] that will be considered.

>
> ## The excerpt above exacerbates the need for having OAuth troubleshooting
> mechanisms and good error reporting. I suggest to add an item for
> operations/deployment considerations (and troubleshooting, in particular)
> under
> work program.
>

 [DC] if there is interest in the working group, it will be addressed.

>
> # Restriction?
>
> CURRENT:
>   The working group is now tackling these topics which will be published as
>   Standards Track or BCPs:
>
> This statement would exclude that the WG can refresh work such as
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc6819.html  (that would,
> for
> example, integrate existing errata or considerations that may be specific
> to
> the complex delegation patterns listed above). I would argue for some
> flexibility here.
>

[DC]  This is a fair point.  I'll be asking for suggestions to this issue
on the telechat.  Maybe adding the word 'primarily' before published...

>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>
>
>