On 6/20/12 6:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi, > > Many thanks for a nice short document! > > I've a few questions though and suspect that a quick re-spin > might be needed, but let's see what the wg think about 'em > first. > > (1) Why Informational? Everything else at that level seems to > be specified in a standards track or BCP level RFC, and IETF > Consensus is required. [1] I think you have to do this as > standards track. Did I miss something? > > [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xml
I think you're right that standards-track makes sense here. > (2) Do you *really* want RFC or specification required for all > registrations? I don't care, but there is a trend away from > that at the moment since its been found to discourage > registrations in a lot of cases. Perhaps expert review would > be ok? No trying to push you one way or the other, I just > wanted to check. Expert review seems fine; lighter processes are better here. If folks really want a spec, I'd prefer Specification Required to RFC Required or IETF Review. > (3) If answer to (2) is yes: Section 5.1 says "Specification > Required" but section 3 said "RFC Required" and those differ. > For example, an OASIS spec would not be ok if you say RFC > required. I don't know if you care, but you need to be > consistent. (Or else I've misread something;-) > > (4) Isn't the template missing the reference to the RFC or > other specification that defines the URN? > > (5) I don't get section 3, sorry;-) Can you give an example of > a class:id pair that'd be registered? Asking IANA to generate > the id part seems odd. It's also not clear to me what is meant by "The token URI that identifies the registered component." Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
