Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove urn:ietf:params:oauth urls #280

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Remove urn:ietf:params:oauth urls #280

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jogu
Copy link
Collaborator

@jogu jogu commented Oct 14, 2024

As an alternative fix to the one in:

#279

Remove the paragraph that appears to create the controverial URNs.

If these URNs are needed, the federation-wallet spec:

https://github.com/peppelinux/federation-wallet

seems to be a more appropriate place to define them.

As an alternative fix to the one in:

#279

Remove the paragraph that appears to create the controverial URNs.

If there URNs are needed, the federation-wallet spec:

https://github.com/peppelinux/federation-wallet

seems to be a more appropriate place to define them.
@bc-pi
Copy link
Member

bc-pi commented Oct 14, 2024

If this is an option, then that whole section should just be deleted. The TRAIN reference is suspect at best and I'm not too sure the 'claims' parameter example is up to date.

@jogu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jogu commented Oct 15, 2024

If this is an option, then that whole section should just be deleted. The TRAIN reference is suspect at best and I'm not too sure the 'claims' parameter example is up to date.

I'm definitely happy to look at that, but I suspect it takes more discussion and there's a house of cards here - these OAuth urls in particular are holding up the IANA considerations PR, which is in turn going to conflict with other PRs. We either need to merge one of the changes, unblock things and open an issue to clean up further or drop them all from the upcoming ID.

By contrast I think if this text around federation is needed (I'm honestly not sure) then it seems more sensible that it lives in the same place as other content in the federation-wallet spec (wherever that content ends up), so removing it here seems like it should be uncontentious.

@bc-pi
Copy link
Member

bc-pi commented Oct 15, 2024

If this is an option, then that whole section should just be deleted. The TRAIN reference is suspect at best and I'm not too sure the 'claims' parameter example is up to date.

I'm definitely happy to look at that, but I suspect it takes more discussion and there's a house of cards here - these OAuth urls in particular are holding up the IANA considerations PR, which is in turn going to conflict with other PRs. We either need to merge one of the changes, unblock things and open an issue to clean up further or drop them all from the upcoming ID.

By contrast I think if this text around federation is needed (I'm honestly not sure) then it seems more sensible that it lives in the same place as other content in the federation-wallet spec (wherever that content ends up), so removing it here seems like it should be uncontentious.

See also #274 (comment) and #274 (comment) i guess but it is definitely a house of cards here. I thought just changing the URNs to something less wrong and importantly less permanent would be uncontentious too #279 but that thought/hope proved wrong.

Maybe I should create an alternative to this alternative...

@bc-pi
Copy link
Member

bc-pi commented Oct 15, 2024

alternative to this alternative now at #282

@jogu
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jogu commented Oct 22, 2024

no approvals at all on this one so I think we can close it in favour of #282

@jogu jogu closed this Oct 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants