Hi Hannes-- The UMA Core spec currently points directly to the basic dynamic
client reg doc with MAY statements, and is agnostic as to usage of the
higher-order functions. (These turn into optional interop feature tests.) So I
think it's fair to say that the split has no structural problems from an UMA
perspective.
Eve
On 28 Jan 2014, at 8:04 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you have seen from the meeting minutes of our recent status chat it
> is time to proceed with the dynamic client registration work.
>
> The earlier version of the dynamic client registration document was
> split into three parts, namely
> (1) the current working group draft containing only minimal
> functionality,
> (2) a document describing meta-data, and
> (3) a document containing management functionality.
>
> This change was made as outcome of the discussions we had more or less
> over the last 9 months.
>
> The latter two documents are individual submissions at this point. New
> content is not available with the recent changes. So, it is one of those
> document management issues.
>
> I had a chat with Stephen about WG adoption of the two individual
> submissions as WG items. It was OK for him given that it is a purely
> document management action. However, before we turn the documents into
> WG items we need your feedback on a number of issues:
>
> 1) Do you have concerns with the document split? Do you object or
> approve it?
> 2) Is the separation of the functionality into these three documents
> correct? Should the line be drawn differently?
> 3) Do you have comments on the documents overall?
>
> We would like to receive high-level feedback within a week. We are also
> eager to hear from implementers and other projects using the dynamic
> client registration work (such as OpenID Connect, UMA, the
> BlueButton/GreenButton Initiative, etc.)
>
> For more detailed reviews please wait till we re-do the WGLC (which we
> plan to do soon). We have to restart the WGLC due to discussions last
> years and the resulting changes to these documents.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes & Derek
>
> PS: Derek and I also think that Phil should become co-auhor of these
> documents for his contributions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
