IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-spop naming

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Wed, 12 November 2014 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C5E1A8BAF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:18:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sak2dyOr0y5M for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B801A904A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x13so14833796wgg.8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:14:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=LiLU+8UxPjrCBSLyQVU8iggrhLIYK/RxjoX5R/BwOtw=; b=SSBVgsWJxSE0s7srzYHDIO1Lp+dZWVYFr8rNHu/i3062U6/Ix2KyqLdz2U2WcL2wry fBrRVcnG8LN+EXjLLSUln1+DruJFaXjBoqRTvW5jox4wvjRX0AEyTpoBKBmYyqOpdwfz eZVjk1Fse1WHdgT9J23ZHqPSbUX8UyhIG3Fip7Bum/ADryW86Mzndseo3kqtHzFb7wvU PGdmCUcTnRzEoGuhWW4XiPIeBGqQ1EiNGovJp0LQYPvNeNTKIkqg4lCKF1Z0nugUyVDn QOX6UICY/n1ODZ9I9I9noqVKGuYgtNPdzX/iQkt7goludfjEq2ITdxw+5HTW6lJdcRy5 hxog==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnz7CpRRS5kXw9NJboAEF+6k3XCh0gNVi1YKj91vrZSh8xsxwyNm8JwLSdDVYQ4tGlXA9rS
X-Received: by 10.180.91.227 with SMTP id ch3mr51247314wib.17.1415812449242; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from t2001067c0370014444f88048d5f4c087.hotel-wired.v6.meeting.ietf.org (t2001067c0370014444f88048d5f4c087.hotel-wired.v6.meeting.ietf.org. [2001:67c:370:144:44f8:8048:d5f4:c087]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j2sm1005217wjs.28.2014.11.12.09.14.06 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:14:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_457A0EA5-F77A-4156-8B1E-7C27B20FDDF3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <2120696919.89112.1415812304892.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10602g.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 07:14:18 -1000
Message-Id: <E3343213-6748-4BA0-BAC4-98D2E47AAB74@ve7jtb.com>
References: <3ABA508F-AD30-4931-832F-79468E74E99D@ve7jtb.com> <2120696919.89112.1415812304892.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10602g.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
To: Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/uyBmK5Ag4s7VsaRCgCtNTtZs0uI
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-spop naming
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:18:40 -0000

Yes we would do that, but it is a WG document now so the authors shouldn't just do it on our own.

On Nov 12, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't actually care if we change the document tracking name from ...-oauth-spop as long as we change the name of the thing in the text.  
> 
> Agreed doc name changing is annoying, it's survivable though.  Having done it once I'd do it differently if I had to do it again, submitting the last version of the original as -00 of the new name just before submitting a new set of changes to it as -01.
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:02 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> The OAuth meeting is today.
> 
> We ran into the publication deadline for the IETF meeting during IIW so haven't published a update yet.
> 
> We do have text on defining error codes that we will discuss today. 
> 
> I expect the name discussion will also happen today.    Changing the draft name is annoying for document tracker continuity but doable.
> 
> John B.
> 
> On Nov 12, 2014, at 6:56 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> 
>> I agree that changing the name could avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion (and said as much in Sept 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13361.html). 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Any progress on naming on this thing?   Didn't see any reply to my previous comment, but that might have been because I replied to the -02 publication notice and it might have gotten filtered.
>> 
>> Similarly, the question of extending the error registry to allow the server tofeed back a failure if the server's required hash method isn't sent.  Also may need a way to advertise what hash method is required.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -bill
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email