Hello,

My apologies for not tracking the activity closer.  What is the anticipated date of the new RFC submission.    Some groups looking to implement UMA may not be able to justify interop work using expired drafts.

Thanks



On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
Since our previous WG discussion on this was inconclusive, Thomas, Maciej, and I discussed the question of whether we should let our current IETF Internet-Drafts expire without update vs. revise them preparatory to our original Informational RFC submission plan. Our consensus was to let them expire.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-resource-reg-06 (exp Oct 6)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-13 (exp Oct 6)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maler-oauth-umatrust-03 (exp Oct 7)

Rationales: Contributions there hadn’t stimulated any feedback or activity coming from the IETF quarter, and there is benefit in having a single canonical version of the specs to refer to. We found diminishing appetite to approach other forums.

We’re due to consider a revision of our charter anyway, so let’s look at aligning it with the new plan in our Oct 22 call (assuming quorum), unless anyone would like to make a case for keeping the current plan (or some other third option).

If you have questions or concerns, please float them in this thread. Thanks,

        Eve

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma