Thank you Stephen for getting this RFC Editor note in. On Jul 23, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > Hi all, > > I'd like to check that some recent minor changes to this > document [1] don't cause technical or process-grief. > > The version [2] of the oauth bearer draft that underwent > IETF LC and IESG evaluation had a normative dependency > on the httpbis wg's authentication framework. [3] > > After resolving IESG discuss positions the authors and > wg chairs felt that it would be better to replace the > normative reference to the httpbis wg draft [3] with one > to RFC 2617 [4] so that the OAuth drafts wouldn't be held > in the RFC editor queue waiting on the httpbis wg to get > done. > > I believe there is no impact on interop resulting from > this change but there has been some disagreement about > making it and how it was made. After some offlist discussion > I think we now have an RFC editor note [5] that means that > the current scheme of referring to RFC 2617 is ok. > > If there are no problems with this in the next week I'll > move the document [1] along as-is. > > Thanks, > Stephen. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-18 > [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth > [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617 > [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer/writeup/ > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
