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