A good example is the discussion going on about the http-state working group. The WG finished their work on cleaning the cookie specification. Some people want to continue work on cookies v.next. It is far from clear if the same working group will be re-chartered, or a new working group created, or none.
The problem with re-chartering is that it usually leads to weaker review of the need to form a working group. The test should be whether the items you mentioned would merit the creation of a working group if this one was closed. I highly doubt it. I want to see this working group reach its end when this charter is fulfilled. At that point, a new working group can be requested to work on other items. The new working group can continue using this list which I assume will remain open. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Hunt [mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:47 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: oauth WG; oauth-...@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter > > There are several things being held back to allow the core specification to > complete. For example, I would expect more expanded work on tokens. > There is also several items in the status pages (e.g. my chain proposal), > revocation etc, that will also need to be discussed. > > You did mention the MAC spec should probably be in an another WG. The > outcome of this decision will likely impact future re-chartering, since other > "token" formats should follow the same path. > > Suffice to say a re-chartering will be needed again. > > Phil > phil.h...@oracle.com > > > > > On 2011-05-09, at 9:30 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > > Sure, there are plenty of things, each with a few people showing interest. > But I have yet to see any proposal with enough interest to justify a working > group. 5 items, each with 5 people showing interest doesn't make it a 25 > people working group. It makes it 5 individual submissions with negligible > support. > > > > Keeping this text in the charter implies that we already have consensus for > re-chartering. We don't. > > > > EHL > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net] > >> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:17 AM > >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > >> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; Blaine Cook; oauth@ietf.org; oauth- > >> a...@tools.ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Charter > >> > >> > >> On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:01 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > >> > >>>> Nov 2011 Prepare re-chartering > >>> > >>> I would like this removed. > >>> > >>> I would like to see this WG closed when this list is complete and if > >>> there is > >> further work with enough interest, a new working group can be created. > >> > >> Hi Eran, > >> > >> we already today see interest in doing additional work beyond what is > >> on the charter. We could remove the explicit item from the charter > >> but we will definitely call for rechartering after we are done with > >> the currently chartered items. > >> > >> Ciao > >> Hannes > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
