On 01/02/17 14:58, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 1/31/17 8:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This specification seems to me to break it's own >> rules. You state that registrations should include >> a reference to a specification to improve interop. >> And yet, for the strings added here (e.g. otp) you >> don't do that (referring to section 2 will not >> improve interop) and there are different ways in >> which many of the methods in section 2 can be done. >> So I think you need to add a bunch more references. > > Not clear to me that the document creating the registry needs to adhere > to the rules for further allocations in order to prepoulate the > registry. that is perhaps an appeal to future consistency.
Sure - I'm all for a smattering of inconsistency:-) But I think the lack of specs in some of these cases could impact on interop, e.g. in the otp case, they quote two RFCs and yet only have one value. That seems a bit broken to me, so the discuss isn't really about the formalism. S. >> >> >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
