The chairs approved this as a working group document. The initial version I posted is marked as an intended status as a "Best Current Practice”
The advantage of a BCP is that it can be updated to include new information as things change. The spec has no extensions to OAuth 2 or MUST’s to profile it. Like the TLS BCP it provides implementation advice for developers to safely use the “Standards Track” specifications. If that is the wrong intended Category it can be changed by the WG chairs at any time. Thanks for supporting the document. I hope that we can expand it with more specific advice for developers on native platforms beyond just iOS and Android. However what we can do will depend on people with experience in other platforms contributing. Regards John B. > On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Adam Lewis <adam.le...@motorolasolutions.com> > wrote: > > +1 that it should be Informational. > > Also, I never got to respond to the original request, but I am heavily in > favor of this draft. I talk with a lot of native app developers who are > clueless about how to implement OAuth. The core RFC is very web app > oriented. I look forward to having a more profiled RFC to point them to :-) > > adam > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu > <mailto:jric...@mit.edu>> wrote: > 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 > > <mailto: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 > > <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/msg15434.html> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15435.html > > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15435.html> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15438.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 <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > <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
