The change and the reason for it were called out to the working group in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09594.html.
What additional text would you propose that the RFC editor add to explain the
deviance from RFC 2617?
Thanks,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:48 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: General Area Review Team; The IESG;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt
On 2012-07-17 19:39, Mike Jones wrote:
> Yes, the decision to remove normative references to HTTPbis was made during
> the public OAuth status call on Monday, July 9th, as the call participants
> wanted to be able to publish the RFC before HTTPbis is published as an RFC.
Well, it would have been nice to see this recorded in a mail to the mailing
list.
> The sense on that call was that HTTPbis wouldn't be an RFC until near the end
> of this year or later. If you have more data on that, it would be great to
> learn what the actual expected timeline is.
We all know well that it's extremely hard to make predictions like these, right?
So again: if you simply replace the dependency then you need to add prose
explaining why you are using syntax that is not allowed per RFC 2617. I would
think it's easier to leave things as they were (and as last-called both in the
WG LC and the IETF LC), and let the spec sit in the RFC Editor queue a bit
longer (it would still be approved as Proposed Standard, just not published).
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
