Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation-00.txt]

I think Peter's advice is very reasonable.  Ultimately the point here is 
to get the discussion going without delaying the schedule for the agreed 
deliverables.  It surely is the WG chairs' prerogative to decide on what 
ought to be done first.

Personally, I don't see any reason to issue a call for consensus before 
the draft has been discussed. I remember the burst of discussions on the 
mailing list before the "bar session," which clearly indicated an 
interest, so I thought we would see more of it after the draft has been 
published.

 I hope that we will get a chance to discuss this in Hiroshima.

Igor

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> <hat type="chair"/>
>
> On 10/1/09 10:24 AM, Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary) wrote:
>   
>> This is reminder of the draft
>> draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation-00.txt. The authors of the draft
>> would like to get feedback on the proposed work (otherwise I should
>> assume that there are no objections to accepting the proposal as a
>> work item).
>>     
>
> Our charter (i.e., our "contract" with the IESG) states:
>
>    After delivering OAuth 1.1, the Working Group may consider
>    defining additional functions and/or extensions...
>
> Naturally we can discuss draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation (and other
> specs) on this list.  And I don't think we absolutely must wait until
> draft-ietf-oauth-authentication and draft-ietf-oauth-web-delegation are
> delivered to the IESG before taking on additional WG items.  However, I
> am at least hesitant to take attention away from the core specs (and
> draft-hammer-oauth as informational documentation of "OAuth Core 1.0
> Revision A" with errata) until we have consensus on the major issues
> we've been discussing recently: mandatory signature algorithms, the
> appropriate place to communicate client credentials, simplifying request
> normalization, token expiration, improved error codes, interaction of
> OAuth with HTTP caching, etc.  I also think it would be very helpful for
> members of this list to complete reviews of the above-mentioned I-Ds
> (perhaps after the document editor has had a chance to incorporate the
> results of recent list discussion).
>
> That said, if the group comes to consensus that it would like to accept
> draft-vrancken-oauth-redelegation as an official work item of the OAuth
> WG, we could proceed with doing so.  If the authors would like the
> chairs to issue a consensus call on this matter, please let us know.
>
> Peter
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrE5voACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyuUQCgvmtiKTSsfpp9EoqQE38RYx+y
> tycAn30XJx74n5/7LbX6gEzcTN45zCur
> =+lG6
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>   