I agree that this should be standards track. I agree that RFC Required is severe overkill. Specification required or expert review would be fine.
I believe that we should delete the "please assign" functionality and require the registration to include the URN. The defining specification should contain the URI to be registered. I also agree that we need the "Specification document(s)" section of the template. Authors, possibly see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-28#section-11.1.1 for example wording to use. The template is also missing the standard "Change controller" section. Per your question (5) Stephen, possibly see the registrations in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-12#section-6. Authors, maybe using one of these as an example would help? -- Mike -----Original Message----- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 5:40 AM To: Stephen Farrell Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-02 On 6/20/12 6:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi, > > Many thanks for a nice short document! > > I've a few questions though and suspect that a quick re-spin might be > needed, but let's see what the wg think about 'em first. > > (1) Why Informational? Everything else at that level seems to be > specified in a standards track or BCP level RFC, and IETF Consensus is > required. [1] I think you have to do this as standards track. Did I > miss something? > > [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xml I think you're right that standards-track makes sense here. > (2) Do you *really* want RFC or specification required for all > registrations? I don't care, but there is a trend away from that at > the moment since its been found to discourage registrations in a lot > of cases. Perhaps expert review would be ok? No trying to push you > one way or the other, I just wanted to check. Expert review seems fine; lighter processes are better here. If folks really want a spec, I'd prefer Specification Required to RFC Required or IETF Review. > (3) If answer to (2) is yes: Section 5.1 says "Specification Required" > but section 3 said "RFC Required" and those differ. > For example, an OASIS spec would not be ok if you say RFC required. I > don't know if you care, but you need to be consistent. (Or else I've > misread something;-) > > (4) Isn't the template missing the reference to the RFC or other > specification that defines the URN? > > (5) I don't get section 3, sorry;-) Can you give an example of a > class:id pair that'd be registered? Asking IANA to generate the id > part seems odd. It's also not clear to me what is meant by "The token URI that identifies the registered component." Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ 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
