Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I concur strongly enough with John Scudder's comment about the IANA registry that I'd like to discuss it. Moreover, Section 4 of BCP 26 says: [...] Newly minted policies, including ones that combine the elements of procedures associated with these terms in novel ways, may be used if none of these policies are suitable; it will help the review process if an explanation is included as to why that is the case. Is that explanation available anywhere? I think John's right, this is a peculiar loophole, and it would be helpful to know why the WG thinks this is necessary. There's already a debate in progress about whether an I-D (which expires) is viable in a Specification Required registry, and we're about to charter a WG to revise BCP 26, so this is actually quite topical. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On the flipside, I appreciate that so much good guidance was given to the Designated Experts and even to us on how we should go about selecting them. It would be helpful if candidates could be nominated (if that hasn't already happened) for approval by the IESG. As rendered on the datatracker's HTML page, the numerous initial entries in Section 8.1.2 are all run together. Could we get them separated? In Section 2, why is "resource_name" only RECOMMENDED? In Section 2.1, second paragraph, the RECOMMENDED and SHOULD seem bare to me. Why would we allow anything other than what's specified, especially since BCP 47 prescribes a particular behavior? _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
