Well in my neck of the woods ... some standards development has created informational drafts in IETF moving towards standards because the underlying standards come IETF and believe that is an appropriate place to live.
Even HL7 is ultimately an ANSI approved standard ( I believe)
I have no opinion either way but it may be much harder to convince others to work on implementation pilots in this space during the lapse.
I have heard and seen pushback that UMA is too immature to implement yet and that worries me. I know this group is working very hard towards 1.1 perhaps even 2.0.
That does not answer the real question that I asked ... what is the anticipated date or new plan on the table? Ignore IETF altogether?
Just playing devils advocate ... will try to catch up and be more informed.
Aha, thanks for the feedback. Are those groups dependent on referencing IETF specifications versus Kantara specifications? If so, could we explore with them the conditions under which I-Ds might have been acceptable previously (knowing that drafts are, well, drafty)?Right now our meeting schedule does have our I-Ds expiring before we’ll have a chance to do anything formal about it, but we can still take up the question on October 15 if it’s warranted.EveOn 4 Oct 2015, at 6:48 PM, Debbie Bucci <debbucci@gmail.com> wrote:ThanksHello,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.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