-1 on all of these. > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Hardjono > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:20 AM > To: Blaine Cook; oauth@ietf.org; oauth-...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter > > Thanks Blaine, > > This is a good start. I have two suggestions and one request for an > additional > paragraph/bullet: > > (a) Openness to future items: > > I would like to see language that is more open (ready) to accept future items > (ie. those on the horizon and those unforeseen). > > For example, the Kerberos WG has just completed its re-charter recently and > had to address this same notion of limit/openness to future items. The > language that was finally chosen reflects this openness, I think. Here are > two > examples: > > "Prepare and advance one or more standards-track specifications which...." > (does XYZ). > > "Prepare, review, and advance standards-track and informational > specifications that..." (that does XYZ)
This defeats the purpose of a charter, which is meant to clearly define what the working group is scoped to do. I would like to see a charter as narrow as possible to help us focus on getting 2.0 done. > > (b) Date for re-charter completion: > > Should you perhaps add a date for the completion of the re-chartering. Say > March 2012 (to coincide with the March IETF). Otherwise re-chartering may > drag on for sometime -- which is known to happen in the IETF :-) I have serious doubts about the need for this WG to continue. I for one am going to push for closing this WG as soon as the list of deliverables are complete. If there is new work, it belongs in a new WG. > (c) Profiles of OAUTH2.0: > > I know that some folks want to use OAUTH2.0 as is (just the one spec), but > other folks (including myself) see the need to build additional features on > top the single OAUTH2.0 spec to make OAUTH2.0 work in other scenarios. > For lack of a better term, I use the term "profile" (to mean clearly defined > additions and narrowings of aspects listed in the main OAUTH2.0 spec). > > As such, I would like request the addition of the following paragraph to the > new charter: > > Prepare, review, and advance standards-track and informational > specifications that define profiles of OAUTH2.0 for usage within certain well- > defined environments. These profiles are adjunct to the OAUTH2.0 > specification, and add optional capabilities to those already defined in the > OAUTH2.0 main specification. This is just a distraction. If you can demonstrate sufficient interest, you should have no problem creating a new WG at the conclusion of this one, or just submit and individual submission, which is probably the only practical way to go with most of these extensions (given the lack or implementation experience and small number of people interested in them). EHL _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
