Am happy to start with Thomas's draft. Going forwards it seems hard to be 'heavily influenced' by things 'we cannot consider'. :-)
Phil @independentid www.independentid.com phil.h...@oracle.com On 2012-03-22, at 10:35 AM, Justin Richer wrote: > I think it's a matter of politics and semantics: The real question is what do > we officially build the IETF version off of? The WG can't officially start > with the OIDF document due to IETF process, which makes sense. But there's > nothing that says we can't start with Thomas's draft and be heavily > influenced by the Connect draft, and make a new one as a real starting point > for conversation. > > If the Connect implementation still needs specific things, it can extend or > profile the IETF version, and remain an OIDF document that normatively > references the IETF document. This is where I see some real value -- the WG > can focus on making a solid interoperable registration piece that different > applications can extend and use as they see fit for the particulars of their > use cases. > > Does this pass muster with everyone? > > -- Justin > > On 03/22/2012 01:26 PM, Mike Jones wrote: >> >> I agree with John that submitting the OpenID Connect dynamic client >> registration spec to the IETF would make no sense. It is intentionally >> specific to the requirements of the Connect use case. >> >> I sent the link to it only so people could compare them, if interested. >> >> -- Mike >> From: John Bradley >> Sent: 3/22/2012 9:43 AM >> To: Phil Hunt >> Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering >> >> It is a OIDF spec at the moment. We don't have any plan to submit it >> currently. >> >> If there is a WG desire for that to happen the OIDF board would have to >> discuss making a submission. >> >> All in all I don't know that it is worth the IPR Lawyer time, as Thomas has >> a quite similar ID Submission. >> >> Anything is possible however. >> >> John B. >> On 2012-03-22, at 1:24 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >> >>> Would the plan be for the Connect Registration spec to be submitted to IETF >>> so they can become WG drafts? >>> >>> The spec seems like a good starting point. >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> @independentid >> >> [The entire original message is not included.] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
