I'd be fine adding the BCP 100 reference. I'd rather that we keep the early
registration procedures language.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:31 PM
To: Justin Richer
Cc: [email protected]; Phil Hunt; <[email protected]>; Mike Jones;
The IESG; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-27: (with COMMENT)
On 21 Apr 2015, at 20:30, Justin Richer wrote:
> Ben et. al,
>
> We’ve incorporated feedback into the latest draft:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-28>
>>
I think that resolves all my comments save one:
[...]
>>
>>>
>>> 4.1 and 4.2 allow the designated expert to accept preliminary
>>> registrations if they are confident a spec will be published.
>>> Shouldn't
>>> this follow the normal processes for preliminary registrations? Is
>>> there
>>> a way to walk back registrations if the spec isn't published after
>>> all?
>>
>> I’ll defer to others’ expertise on the right text for the IANA
>> section, this was imported from another example spec.
>>
BCP 100 (RFC 7120) describes the IANA early allocation procedures. You
might consider a reference to that, so you can capture the processes for
walking back allocations that don't get finalized. Or, unless you want
additional restrictions not in the BCP, you could leave out mention of
early allocations completely, and let IANA deal with it according to
standard procedures.
[...]
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
