Yes, this matches my understanding of the discussions at the Seoul meeting.
On 03/04/2017 07:10 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> just for clarification: as far as I remember the proposal in Seoul was to
> turn the document into a BCP.
>
> Is this consistent with your expectation
A BCP is still assigned a RFC number.
The intent is to have BCP number as well.
EG BCP195’s current instance is RFC 7525.
The intent is to have a BCP series but the process is largely the same as I
understand it.
John B.
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt
> wrote:
>
> H
Hi Hannes,
just for clarification: as far as I remember the proposal in Seoul was to turn
the document into a BCP.
Is this consistent with your expectation?
kind regards,
Torsten.
> Am 20.02.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Hannes Tschofenig :
>
> Hi all,
>
> earlier this month we issued a call for ad
Great!
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM Hannes Tschofenig
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> earlier this month we issued a call for adoption of the OAuth security
> topics draft, see draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security-topics-00, and the
> response was quite positive on the list (as well as during the last f2f
>
Hi all,
earlier this month we issued a call for adoption of the OAuth security
topics draft, see draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security-topics-00, and the
response was quite positive on the list (as well as during the last f2f
meeting).
For this reason, we ask the authors to submit a WG version of the
