Folks, Eran, My apologies for jumping ahead to far. I misunderstood Blaine's email. I took the words "Revised Charter" to mean "Re-charter".
And usually when a WG says "re-charter", it means a big overhaul (which is why I mentioned Profiles, etc. etc.). This is not the case here. I believe what we are doing today is a just a charter "clarification", "firm-up" or "clean-up". So please ignore my posting :) Thanks. /thomas/ __________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:48 PM > To: Thomas Hardjono; Blaine Cook; oauth@ietf.org; oauth- > a...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter > > -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
