Skip to content

OCM-IP: First draft of the I-D document.#370

Open
mickenordin wants to merge 5 commits into
developfrom
kano-ocm-ip
Open

OCM-IP: First draft of the I-D document.#370
mickenordin wants to merge 5 commits into
developfrom
kano-ocm-ip

Conversation

@mickenordin

@mickenordin mickenordin commented Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR adds the first draft of the Open Cloud Mesh Integration Protocol, and acknowledges Enrique's contribution in the main OCM spec.

I don't think it will be valuable to work too much on the text of this spec in this pr, rather focusing on IETF ID nits and such (if there are any), the IETF call for adoption procedure will safeguard that we do not introduce a bad document, and obviously we will have to evolve this document incrementally in pr's going forward.

I would appreciate assistance with the CI for building the xml document on pr.

@glpatcern

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm going through the doc, at least as a first pass.

I can also help with the CI, I have something already, will commit in this branch.

@MahdiBaghbani

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm reading this as well I have some points that I will write in coming days in review

@mickenordin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'm reading this as well I have some points that I will write in coming days in review

If possible, I think it would be good to invert this flow. I.e. merge this PR, and them work on the content of the documents by making pr:s against it. Remeber that merging this PR makes no difference of the status of the document at the IETF, the call for adoption is what makes it an "official" document in the WG, and I think addressing all concerns as reviews against this PR will be much harder than the opposite, changing the document incrementally after it has been merged.

mickenordin and others added 5 commits June 12, 2026 13:59
The text in the document more or less assumed #365 were going to be
merged. Instead we decided to close it in favor of this document, so the
format of the JWT needed to be more thouroughly incorporated in the spec
here.
Early on Matthias Kraus noticed that client_id and providerId
could/should be the same.
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.

3 participants