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

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

I think Specification required is fine.  It allows a OIDF or OASIS spec to be used as the basis for the registration withh appropriate expert review.

John B.

Sent from my iPad

On 2012-06-23, at 8:31 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Mike, 
> 
> the point is not that other groups, like OASIS, cannot use them. They can use the extensions. 
> 
> The question is more what process and documentation is needed to allow OASIS (and others) to define their own extensions. 
> 
> So far, OASIS had not been interested for any extension (at least from what I know). The OpenID community, to which you also belong, had defined extensions (and brought some of them to the IETF) but had been quite careful themselves to ensure proper review and documentation. 
> 
> So, if you look at the most important decision points then you have: 
> 
> 1) do you want a requirement for a specification, i.e., when someone defines an extension do you want it to be documented somewhere? 
> 
> 2) do you envision a review from experts (e.g., checking whether the stuff makes any sense or conflicts with some other already available extensions)? 
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226 provides a good discussion about this topic. 
> 
> If the answer to the above-listed questions is YES then you probably at least want 'Specification Required' as a policy. 
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> 
>> I'd argue that the registration regime chosen should be flexible enough to permit OASIS or OpenID specs to use it. Otherwise, as someone else pointed, people will work around the limitation by using unregistered values - which helps no one.
>> 
>> -- Mike
>> 
>> From: Barry Leiba
>> Sent: 6/21/2012 12:31 PM
>> To: Stephen Farrell
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
>> 
>>>> Stephen:
>>>> Yeah, I'm not sure Standards Track is needed.
>>> 
>>> On this bit: I personally don't care, except that we don't have to do it twice
>>> because someone later on thinks the opposite and wins that argument, which
>>> I'd rather not have at all  (My one-track mind:-) Doing the 4 week last call means
>>> once is enough. But I'm ok with whatever the WG want.
>> 
>> Well, it's not a 4-week LC, but a 2-week one.  Anyway, yes, I see your
>> point, and I've done that with other documents.  Better to make it
>> Standards Track for now, note in the shepherd writeup that
>> Informational is probably OK, and let the IESG decide.
>> 
>> b
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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