[Openid-specs-risc] RISC Profile
Richard Backman, Annabelle
richanna at amazon.com
Wed Sep 13 16:56:31 UTC 2017
Why do you expect the events document will change? Is your concern that new RISC events will be introduced over time, and the document will be updated to include those? Updating the original document like that may lead to confusion over what it means for a service to say it “supports RISC”.
Annabelle Richard Backman
From: "Phil Hunt (IDM)" <phil.hunt at oracle.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 7:08 PM
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com>
Cc: "Richard Backman, Annabelle" <richanna at amazon.com>, "openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net" <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>, "secevemt at ve7jtb.com" <secevemt at ve7jtb.com>
Subject: Re: RISC Profile
Oidf has its own publication process and template. Let me know if you need a copy. It uses the older xml2rfc converter.
The life cycles are the same so i would just keep everything in one risc doc unless there is a good information or technical reason to separate (other then doc mgmt).
The IETF would not be a good place for the spec because most cases (at least the explicit cases) stem from OIDC use cases.
The only reason it might be worth discussing at IETF is the implicit cases. That could be done as a new charter in Secevents. But i think openid is fine unless this is something you feel all email providers need to consider supporting RISC.
On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com<mailto:mscurtescu at google.com>> wrote:
I think the RISC profile should be published as an OpenID standard, and not under IETF.
I was planning to create a separate document for the event types. The reasoning was that event types will change more frequent and a separate document makes more sense. Let me know who would like to be an author and I will create the skeleton again in a couple of days.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna at amazon.com<mailto:richanna at amazon.com>> wrote:
1. Is the intention to publish RISC as RFCs through IETF? Or is it just a convenient organizing structure for now?
2. Will the RISC event types be defined in this document, or in a separate document? I recall us talking about this in one of our F2Fs but I cannot remember the outcome. I do recall arguing that events defined in the future should be defined in separate documents.
Annabelle Richard Backman
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com<mailto:mscurtescu at google.com>>
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 9:18 PM
To: "openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>" <openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net>>
Cc: Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com<mailto:phil.hunt at oracle.com>>, "Richard Backman, Annabelle" <richanna at amazon.com<mailto:richanna at amazon.com>>, "secevemt at ve7jtb.com<mailto:secevemt at ve7jtb.com>" <secevemt at ve7jtb.com<mailto:secevemt at ve7jtb.com>>
Subject: RISC Profile
The initial skeleton at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-risc