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

[Maciej Machulak <[e-mail]>]

+1

-- 
Cheers, Maciej (sent from my tablet)
On Sep 11, 2014 5:07 PM, "Phil Hunt" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1. Experimental seems best here.
>
> Phil
>
> > On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:03, "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > That was the key line that I took from the guidelines as well and this
> was my understanding of the discussion in Toronto.
> >
> > -- Justin
> >
> >> On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:02 PM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think this fits.
> >>
> >>    • If the IETF may publish something based on this on the standards
> track once we know how well this one works, it's Experimental. This is the
> typical case of not being able to decide which protocol is "better" before
> we have experience of dealing with them from a stable specification. Case
> in point: "PGM Reliable Transport Protocol Specification" (RFC 3208)
> >>
> >> If we publish something it may or may not look like the current spec
> but getting some experience with the current spec will inform that decision.
> >>
> >> John B.
> >>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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." <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is "experimental" the correct classification? Maybe "informational"
> is more appropriate as both of these were discussed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hannes
> Tschofenig
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM
> >>>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> OAuth mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OAuth mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>