- From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:16:23 -0700
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Stephen, On 6/1/2011 5:16 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Just on DOSETA - that's not currently got any official > home in the IETF so its not something that would be right > to reference at this point (unless the oauth WG wanted to > adopt DOSETA but I'd be very surprised if that were the > case for timing reasons). I'm confused on two counts. (To be honest, of course, I'm confused about many points, but two of them are relevant to this thread...) One, of course, is that I've been actively raising DOSETA in various IETF venues for the different groups to considering adopting and/or adapting it. As such, discussion of DOSETA permits exploring the possibility of adoption and/or adaptation. The second is that you appear to be stating a policy that a working group is only permitted to reference things which are currently and officially IETF work items. I suspect that that is not what you meant, so at the least, please clarify what you do mean. If you really do mean anything like the interpretation I just summarized, please explain its basis. > To be clear, as an individual, I do think that "something > like DOSETA" is a really good idea and maybe DOSETA will > turn out to be that something, I don't know. If it is not acceptable to 'reference' DOSETA now and here, then how will the determination of its utility be made? Thanks. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 21:17:06 UTC