Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Naming drafts

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:30:39 -0700

I am thinking about naming the two drafts:

draft-ietf-oauth-authentication (section 3)
draft-ietf-oauth-web-authorization (section 4)

Comments?

EHL

---

From: "Manger, James H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:09:31 +1000

draft-ietf-oauth-web-delegation (section 4)

would be my preference ("delegation" instead of "authorization")

James Manger
[email-masked]
Identity and security team — Chief Technology Office — Telstra

----------
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2009 9:31 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Naming drafts

Comments?

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:50:34 -0400

One process point: Until there's WG consensus to adopt the drafts, 
shouldn't they be draft-hammer-oauth-* ?

Beyond that, I really don't care too much what the names are.  (We had 
one draft name in GEOPRIV that had a misspelled acronym all the way 
until it was an RFC :) )

--Richard

Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:09:29 -0600

<hat type='chair'/>

> shouldn't they be draft-hammer-oauth-* ?

The IESG approved our charter for the express and primary purpose of
empowering this Working Group to produce an RFC defining "OAuth 1.1",
based on the "OAuth 1.0" specification (which in Internet-Draft form is
draft-hammer-oauth-02). Therefore I do not think that we need a further
consensus call to publish draft-hammer-oauth-02 as a WG item, since it
is the central focus of our charter.

The drafts that Eran has mentioned are merely an editorial convenience
to split draft-hammer-oauth-02 into two specifications: one that defines
the protocol for authentication of requests (roughly, Section 3 of
draft-hammer-oauth-02) and another that defines methods for using that
authentication protocol to provide delegated access to protected
resources (roughly, Section 4 of draft-hammer-oauth-02).

The spec split has been discussed on this list and no objections have
been raised (indeed, rough consensus seems to be that the spec split is
a very good idea). Although no *official* consensus call has been
issued, it seems doubtful that an official consensus call is necessary
here since no matters of technical substance are involved. Therefore I
deem it straightforward for the WG to split draft-hammer-oauth-02 into
two specifications and then publish those I-Ds as WG items.

As to the mechanics, Eran will split the I-D into two, name those I-Ds
draft-ietf-oauth-authentication and draft-ietf-oauth-web-delegation (or
whatever we agree upon), and submit them through the normal processes;
it is then the responsibility of the WG chairs to approve those
documents for publication, since a name of the form draft-ietf-oauth-*
implies that a specification is an official WG item.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:31:10 -0700

I like delegation. I care more about the 'web' part to clearly indicate that this is just one of potential many other ways to accomplish delegation that will result in a token (which in turn can be used with the authentication spec).

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:10 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Naming drafts
> 
> draft-ietf-oauth-authentication (section 3) draft-ietf-oauth-web-
> authorization (section 4)
> 
> Comments?