I’d like to note that when Tony brought up it being Experimental on the list, several of us (myself included) pointed out that Informational is the correct designation for this specification.
— Justin > On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > On January 19th I posted a call for adoption of the OAuth 2.0 for Native > Apps specification, see > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15400.html > > There was very positive feedback during the Yokohama IETF meeting to > work on this document in the OAuth working group. More than 10 persons > responded positively to the call on the mailing list as well. > > Several persons provided additional input for content changes during the > call and here are the relevant links: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15434.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15435.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15438.html > > Tony also noted that this document should become an Experimental RFC > rather than a Standards Track RFC. The chairs will consult with the > Security Area directors on this issue. > > To conclude, based on the call <draft-wdenniss-oauth-native-apps> will > become the starting point for work in OAuth. Please submit the document > as draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-00.txt. > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
