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: [email protected] 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
