Thanks, guys. Let me know when tis has been addressed. Kathleen
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be fine adding the BCP 100 reference. I'd rather that we keep the > early registration procedures language. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:31 PM > To: Justin Richer > Cc: [email protected]; Phil Hunt; <[email protected]>; Mike > Jones; The IESG; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on > draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT) > > On 21 Apr 2015, at 20:30, Justin Richer wrote: > > > Ben et. al, > > > > We’ve incorporated feedback into the latest draft: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28 > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28> > >> > > I think that resolves all my comments save one: > > [...] > > >> > >>> > >>> 4.1 and 4.2 allow the designated expert to accept preliminary > >>> registrations if they are confident a spec will be published. > >>> Shouldn't > >>> this follow the normal processes for preliminary registrations? Is > >>> there > >>> a way to walk back registrations if the spec isn't published after > >>> all? > >> > >> I’ll defer to others’ expertise on the right text for the IANA > >> section, this was imported from another example spec. > >> > > BCP 100 (RFC 7120) describes the IANA early allocation procedures. You > might consider a reference to that, so you can capture the processes for > walking back allocations that don't get finalized. Or, unless you want > additional restrictions not in the BCP, you could leave out mention of > early allocations completely, and let IANA deal with it according to > standard procedures. > > > [...] > > -- Best regards, Kathleen
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
