Re: Oauth blog post

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Sun, 29 July 2012 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B311221F8552 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.273
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.326, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXYlMgybl5bU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5251D21F8526 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6TKbSiK026783; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:37:28 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {50159CA1-2-1B221DC2-4FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:37:27 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:37:27 +0300
Subject: Re: Oauth blog post
Thread-Topic: Oauth blog post
Thread-Index: Ac1tyfepd0iemUnmRIq1orK92HU1YQ==
Message-ID: <1876CD0A-DD0A-4253-B559-0A4F041DA3DE@checkpoint.com>
References: <501531F7.5040404@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120729073422.06d8fe10@resistor.net> <39B73AD9-4E8F-4E94-A538-69BE5D8C0E18@gmx.net> <1343593068.9245.0.camel@gwz-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <1343593068.9245.0.camel@gwz-laptop>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:37:32 -0000

On Jul 29, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 12:19 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> 
>> Just a minor comment on this one: 
>> 
>> On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, SM wrote:
>> 
>> >  "[the] working group at the IETF started with strong web presence. But as the
>> >   work dragged on (and on) past its first year, those web folks left along with
>> >   every member of the original 1.0 community. The group that was left was largely
>> >   all enterpriseā€¦ and me."
>> 
>> The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the discussions. 
>> 
>> Do you think open participation is wrong?
> 
> Do you think that corporate domination of "open" standards development is OK?

Hi

Like Dale, I haven't followed the play throughout the life of OAuth (the working group)

Who are these corporations that dominate the working group?  Are they content providers like Facebook, Twitter, or Disney?  Are they ISPs? Is it General Motors?

If they are the people who are supposed to use these standards, their participation is a good thing. I wish we had more users (corporate or others) in the Security Area. So who are they?

Yoav