According to the guidelines here: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
And the discussion in Toronto, it's clearly experimental. -- Justin On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Is "experimental" the correct classification? Maybe "informational" is more > appropriate as both of these were discussed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:50 PM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol: Next > Steps? > > Hi all, > > in response to the discussions at the last IETF meeting the authors of the > "Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol" > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management-05 have > changed the document type to "Experimental". > > We need to make a decision about the next steps for the document and we see > the following options: > > a) Publish it as an experimental RFC > > b) Remove it from the working group and ask an AD to shepherd it > > c) Remove it from the working group and let the authors publish it via the > independent submission track. > > In any case it would be nice to let folks play around with it and then, after > some time, come back to determine whether there is enough interest to produce > a standard. > > Please let us know what you think! > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
