This boils down to whether the registration template can contain all the detailes required for interoperability or not. If not, you need a specification.
EH > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Mike Jones > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:31 AM > To: John Bradley; Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: Barry Leiba; oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02 > > I agree that Specification Required would be fine. I'd rather that there be a > publicly available specification defining the URN than one potentially > available only to the expert reviewers. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Bradley [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:36 AM > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org; Barry Leiba > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02 > > I think Specification required is fine. It allows a OIDF or OASIS spec to be > used as the basis for the registration withh appropriate expert review. > > John B. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 2012-06-23, at 8:31 AM, Hannes Tschofenig > <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > the point is not that other groups, like OASIS, cannot use them. They can > use the extensions. > > > > The question is more what process and documentation is needed to allow > OASIS (and others) to define their own extensions. > > > > So far, OASIS had not been interested for any extension (at least from > what I know). The OpenID community, to which you also belong, had defined > extensions (and brought some of them to the IETF) but had been quite > careful themselves to ensure proper review and documentation. > > > > So, if you look at the most important decision points then you have: > > > > 1) do you want a requirement for a specification, i.e., when someone > defines an extension do you want it to be documented somewhere? > > > > 2) do you envision a review from experts (e.g., checking whether the stuff > makes any sense or conflicts with some other already available extensions)? > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226 provides a good discussion about this > topic. > > > > If the answer to the above-listed questions is YES then you probably at > least want 'Specification Required' as a policy. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > > > >> I'd argue that the registration regime chosen should be flexible enough to > permit OASIS or OpenID specs to use it. Otherwise, as someone else > pointed, people will work around the limitation by using unregistered values > - which helps no one. > >> > >> -- Mike > >> > >> From: Barry Leiba > >> Sent: 6/21/2012 12:31 PM > >> To: Stephen Farrell > >> Cc: oauth@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02 > >> > >>>> Stephen: > >>>> Yeah, I'm not sure Standards Track is needed. > >>> > >>> On this bit: I personally don't care, except that we don't have to > >>> do it twice because someone later on thinks the opposite and wins > >>> that argument, which I'd rather not have at all (My one-track > >>> mind:-) Doing the 4 week last call means once is enough. But I'm ok with > whatever the WG want. > >> > >> Well, it's not a 4-week LC, but a 2-week one. Anyway, yes, I see > >> your point, and I've done that with other documents. Better to make > >> it Standards Track for now, note in the shepherd writeup that > >> Informational is probably OK, and let the IESG decide. > >> > >> b > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
