inline: On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:04 AM Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda= 40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > 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 would suggest removing “OAuth” from the title of the draft and make it > “Token Status List”. “OAuth Token Status List” sounds like status list > mechanism defined in this draft is only for the tokens used in > OAuth/RFC6749, which it is not. > > > +1 > > 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. > > > > Huge +1. > +1 > > Best, > > Kristina > > > > > > *From:* OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Michael Jones > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2023 10:29 PM > *To:* rifaat.s.ietf <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com>; Aaron Parecki < > aa...@parecki.com> > *Cc:* oauth <oauth@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - JWT and CWT Status List > > > > 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 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> 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 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> 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> wrote: > > +1 for adoption > > > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 9:53 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <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 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
