Re: How to tell people... Was: We appear to still be litigating OAuth, oops

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Sun, 28 February 2021 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CBA3A184A for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:28:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x_z8dC8RLei0 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E50F3A184B for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p193so13173770yba.4 for <>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aSCmry5hlH8KsA1KYH5mlYXBMCGKSKkLg2s5GvLeuX8=; b=hQAfIWm8XLFJEwt6hwqOjcKDXql88MQhoByPMlzPhYpkR9Y9f3Kvo81U+V6bHPjWJe QtYqsZxbtkWj00bsUZE6mY9jpNwhG259A2Wgu7Zksh5UuOe3cz9QWtLfDyV9J77Ym94o WAMrgSHth/BdvvulJh6HuXHReEeimS5KNmxgF3ZZhoePz5Yh57qMaLamdWKeHM7QOFYZ mtdJf+ksJuGr6LW8zfgiCQOaIUKyRRRw17BBwHhOO9GiI0afJwM4SH0Jpkimhd2/K74B QtmJbW7x1QM3lgrbyA2wH5YX52Aic6k6YmuTfn4jR8h1Qcbiq+cpFYmlGir13OsGxC/e Yvrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5316rNU0yuICoWLg1c6XvDW3NPjJ4jB6zQ1Q+wOGsUVMZV3LOF+w WB6L5hdOBp9jS8I7H6sUeAELyX7qbTgsX7Px4bv3abhiVHM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxA5Z19yw5aIMmodX6pdHIS24lzcGrY0H0dngxq1VbTz0XI6Q5jC9k9d2YxgE1wZCL1AvTNeTphqtqgmjJfiwo=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ad67:: with SMTP id l39mr14894235ybe.172.1614479311195; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 18:28:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <21339.1614457162@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <21339.1614457162@localhost>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:28:20 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: How to tell people... Was: We appear to still be litigating OAuth, oops
To: Michael Richardson <>
Cc: Keith Moore <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d7543f05bc5c4141"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 02:28:34 -0000

On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 3:20 PM Michael Richardson <>

> Keith Moore <> wrote:
>     >> This is one of the reasons I would like to see the IETF move
> towards a
>     >> W3C style plenary in which WGs are required to provide short
>     >> introductions to what they do. No, not status reports: an elevator
>     >> pitch.
>     > We actually had similar plenaries, long ago, as a way to keep the
>     > broader community informed about what individual WGs were doing.
> First
>     > thing Monday mornings, as I recall.
> Yes, my first IETF, 36 had that.  By IETF40, they were gone, considered a
> waste of common time.  There clearly was some value that we are now
> partially
> missing.

It is precisely the sort of exercise that like not repainting, you can miss
once or twice without issue. But if you stop doing it altogether you
suddenly realize was necessary.

And what really annoys is that we keep being told that the value of having
the meetings we do is that the areas can cross-fertilize.

This is also the sort of thing that has a lot of value for new members and
less for the old hands. So the folk in authority get rid of them because
they don't need them but they are blind to the fact that they have just
pulled up the drawbridge for new participants.

> There have been a few IAB Tech plenaries and SAAG presentations that fall
> into the elevator pitch.  Tiru Reddy most recently did one on DOTS, for
> instance.

HOTRFC as well