Original text:
<del> OAuth Status List </del>  draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-latest Abstract

Reviewer comments:
URL
I noticed the draft was renamed from the name it previously had at the last IETF meeting where it was adopted. The previous name was "JWT and CWT Status List" and the new name is "OAuth Status List". I understand not wanting to have "JWT" and "CWT" in the name, but the new name is somewhat confusing, since it makes it sound like there is a status of OAuth itself somehow. I suggest renaming this to "OAuth Token Status List" to avoid confusion.
See We got feedback from multiple people and hence decided to go for as this seemed a reasonable choice by many. I would not change the title now again before the cutoff, but I'm happy to discuss so in Prague.
FWIW my comments/feedback on and related conversations were only about the document identifier being For the draft title, I'd go with "Token Status List" as suggested URL Note that the document identifier (guess it's called docname in the markdown) needs to start with draft-ietf-oauth- because of IETF convention and the draft being an OAuth WG item. But the document title doesn't have to have "OAuth" in it.
After reviewing the discussion I also would support "Token Status List". And yes, it looks like the discussion in was about the draft URL, not the title.
The name of the issue is "Feedback from call of adoption: Draft title". How should it not be about the title then?
I was commenting on the fact that literally all of the comments only mentioned the draft URL.
I already stated in the ML, but I support `Token Status List"
"Token Status List" seems the most supported option, if there is no objection, we would rename next week. I would suggest removing “OAuth” from the title of the draft and make it “Token Status List”. “OAuth Token Status List” sounds like status list mechanism defined in this draft is only for the tokens used in OAuth/RFC6749, which it is not. Huge +1. Best, Kristina From: OAuth On Behalf Of Michael Jones Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 10:29 PM To: URL ; Aaron Parecki Cc: oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - JWT and CWT Status List To Aaron’s naming points, I would be fine changing the title in the draft from “OAuth Status List” to “OAuth Token Status List”, if there’s working group consensus to do so. We could have that discussion in Prague. The name change was motivated by feedback from multiple sources that the old name “JWT and CWT Status List” was too specific in token types, seeming to unnecessarily tie our hands. That said, I don’t think we need to change the draft identifier “draft-ietf-oauth-status-list”. I doubt that there’s another kind of status list happening in the working group that might cause confusion. ;-) Besides, the draft identifier is actually ephemeral. Should the working group draft progress, it will be replaced by an RFC number. Cheers, -- Mike From: OAuth > On Behalf Of Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 7:48 AM To: Aaron Parecki > Cc: oauth > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - JWT and CWT Status List I also noticed you didn't mark it as replacing the individual draft in datatracker. You can email EMAIL and request that they mark it as replacing URL so that the history tracks better. I fixed that. Regards, Rifaat On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:35 AM Aaron Parecki > wrote: Tobias, Paul, Christian, I just noticed the new working group adopted version of this draft: URL I posted this comment on Github, but I'll repeat it here for others. I find the new name "OAuth Status List" confusing. While I understand wanting to remove "JWT" and "CWT" from the name, I was not aware of that discussion during the call for adoption. I would suggest renaming this to "OAuth Token Status List" instead. I also noticed you didn't mark it as replacing the individual draft in datatracker. You can email EMAIL and request that they mark it as replacing URL so that the history tracks better. I also noticed that there are significant changes to the draft between the individual and working group versions. Typically it is better to post a verbatim copy of the individual draft as the adopted version, and then make changes in a -01 version. Thanks! Aaron On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef > wrote: All, Based on the feedback to this call for adoption, we declare this document adopted as a WG document. Authors, Please, submit this as a working group document at your earliest convenience. Regards, Rifaat & Hannes On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 8:51 PM John Bradley > wrote: +1 for adoption All, This is an official call for adoption for the JWT and CWT Status List draft: URL Please, reply on the mailing list and let us know if you are in favor or against adopting this draft as WG document, by Oct 13th. Regards, Rifaat & Hannes OAuth mailing list EMAIL URL OAuth mailing list EMAIL URL

Revised text:
 <ins> Token Status List </ins> draft-ietf-oauth-status-list-latest Abstract