I have not seen any detailed agenda for IETF 80. If there will be votes that override email votes all participant should so be informed.
Phil Sent from my phone. On 2011-03-11, at 17:46, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes will >> wait until after Prague in any case. > To inform the discussions @ IETF 80 to determine what else might be needed, > which goes to your second comment > > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Lucy Lynch > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 5:41 PM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, deadline > Friday, March 18 > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Mike Jones wrote: > >> As you know, the OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token draft -03 established the >> OAuth Errors >> Registry<http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03.ht >> ml#errors-registry> to increase interoperability among implementations >> using the related OAuth specifications. As you also know, there has >> been some discussion about whether: >> >> A) The OAuth Errors Registry belongs in in the Framework >> specification rather than the bearer token specification, >> B) The OAuth Errors Registry should continue to be defined in the >> Bearer Token specification and apply to all OAuth specifications, >> C) The OAuth Errors Registry should reside in the Bearer Token >> specification but be scoped back to only apply to that specification, >> or >> D) The OAuth Errors Registry should be deleted because the set of >> errors should not be extensible. >> >> Please vote for A, B, C, or D by Friday, March 18th. > > Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes will > wait until after Prague in any case. > >> I personally believe that A makes the most sense, but given that other >> points of view have also been voiced, this consensus call is needed to >> resolve the issue. > > Consensus isn't achieved by voting so all you'll get is poll data but that > may be useful here. While I agree that there has been some discussion, I > don't think the relative merits of the models have been made clear to the > group. A fuller discussion of the need for an extensible registry for errors > (before decided where to home the text) might be more helpful. > > - Lucy > > >> Cheers, >> -- Mike >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
