To Aaron’s naming points, I would be fine changing the title in the draft from
“OAuth Status List” to “OAuth Token Status List”, if there’s working group
consensus to do so. We could have that discussion in Prague.
The name change was motivated by feedback from multiple sources that the old
name “JWT and CWT Status List” was too specific in token types, seeming to
unnecessarily tie our hands.
That said, I don’t think we need to change the draft identifier
“draft-ietf-oauth-status-list”. I doubt that there’s another kind of status
list happening in the working group that might cause confusion. ;-) Besides,
the draft identifier is actually ephemeral. Should the working group draft
progress, it will be replaced by an RFC number.
Cheers,
-- Mike
From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 7:48 AM
To: Aaron Parecki <aa...@parecki.com>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - JWT and CWT Status List
I also noticed you didn't mark it as replacing the individual draft in
datatracker. You can email supp...@ietf.org<mailto:supp...@ietf.org> and
request that they mark it as replacing
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list/ so
that the history tracks better.
I fixed that.
Regards,
Rifaat
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:35 AM Aaron Parecki
<aa...@parecki.com<mailto:aa...@parecki.com>> wrote:
Tobias, Paul, Christian,
I just noticed the new working group adopted version of this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/
I posted this comment on Github, but I'll repeat it here for others. I find the
new name "OAuth Status List" confusing. While I understand wanting to remove
"JWT" and "CWT" from the name, I was not aware of that discussion during the
call for adoption. I would suggest renaming this to "OAuth Token Status List"
instead.
I also noticed you didn't mark it as replacing the individual draft in
datatracker. You can email supp...@ietf.org<mailto:supp...@ietf.org> and
request that they mark it as replacing
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list/ so
that the history tracks better.
I also noticed that there are significant changes to the draft between the
individual and working group versions. Typically it is better to post a
verbatim copy of the individual draft as the adopted version, and then make
changes in a -01 version.
Thanks!
Aaron
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
<rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Based on the feedback to this call for adoption, we declare this document
adopted as a WG document.
Authors,
Please, submit this as a working group document at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Rifaat & Hannes
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 8:51 PM John Bradley
<ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
+1 for adoption
On Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 9:53 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
<rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
This is an official call for adoption for the JWT and CWT Status List draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list/
Please, reply on the mailing list and let us know if you are in favor or
against adopting this draft as WG document, by Oct 13th.
Regards,
Rifaat & Hannes
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
