I agree that Specification Required would be fine. I'd rather that there be a
publicly available specification defining the URN than one potentially
available only to the expert reviewers.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bradley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:36 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Mike Jones; [email protected]; Barry Leiba
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02
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 <[email protected]> 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: [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
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
