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. On Oct 5, 2015 12:16 AM, "Eve Maler" wrote:

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.

Eve

On 4 Oct 2015, at 6:48 PM, Debbie Bucci wrote:

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 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

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

Justin, that’s an interesting tack to take — nice. Debbie, basically we had a previous plan-of-record to do Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4846.txt intended for Informational RFC processing. Prior to that, and prior to Kantara Initiative having adjusted its founding documents, the original plan-of-record was simply to "contribute the specs to IETF" without having explicitly said what that meant — though adoption in the OAuth WG was one path we thought might be viable, and in the case of dynamic client registration, did work. We equally could have meant that we were planning to propose a new WG or something. Based on Justin’s recent suggestion to reopen the question, we’d brought this up a couple of times without resolution, and recently the WG leadership team discussed it and formulated a recommendation to let the drafts expire without further action. By no means is the matter completely closed, and if we do choose to change our minds on Oct 15, the “expired” period could be as short as a week — hardly unusual for drafts. (Note that UMA is working on V1.0.1, a “patch release”, not V1.1, and it’s essentially stable at this point... The public review period ends Nov 2, and typically this results in only minor/editorial changes. We have agreed to treat our backlog of issues as akin to a software project’s issues database — and we have taken the extraordinary step of exposing our guesses about which issues might rise to the level of requiring a “V2.0” if we execute on them. I think implementers can take our orderly, expeditious, backwards-compatible patch release cycle and our software-style processes as a signal that we’re serious about release planning and our commitment to enabling the implementer community, perhaps more so than any protocol standards group I can think of in my long history of working on them. ;-) ) Eve

On 5 Oct 2015, at 5:42 AM, Justin Richer wrote:

I don’t think the drafts in IETF really serve their intended purpose anymore. If Kantara is willing to stand up and be an SDO now, then it should publish things directly.

It might even be worth submitting IETF drafts that provide pointers to the canonical Kantara documents (with no other content).

— Justin

...

On Oct 5, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Debbie Bucci mailto:debbucci@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

On Oct 5, 2015 12:16 AM, "Eve Maler" mailto:eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote: 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.

Eve

...

On 4 Oct 2015, at 6:48 PM, Debbie Bucci mailto:debbucci@gmail.com> wrote:

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 mailto: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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-resource-reg-06 (exp Oct 6) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-13 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-13 (exp Oct 6) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maler-oauth-umatrust-03 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 tel:%2B1%20425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com mailto:xmlgrrl@gmail.com

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

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 tel:%2B1%20425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com mailto:xmlgrrl@gmail.com

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

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