Re: Oauth blog post

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 31 July 2012 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 9B28B21F8495 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 g4SwoSe4sdZW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E61621F86D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6VA11Li017310; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1343728868; bh=DlQeVWPFjNlB3GDzns9RVYXfeK/8SUQFTBiBCdJ8DNk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=T6HT2RZNbHUJjDWHIv9G9eXXzjDM4BNvASMll4wWDOnSqhF2le9zCJtf845rpcqmO UHHAQ0AJ/0rZqIeSatMFd7RTnxZ7jcfzj/itWKiuQ6c1wpTkhwenhNCvFMDq0kkcQG RLRqzERkkQWXu9aocRzNsCjccRTO3jEeBFklBwKk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1343728868; i=@resistor.net; bh=DlQeVWPFjNlB3GDzns9RVYXfeK/8SUQFTBiBCdJ8DNk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=O9pVChV6d0m/992aidKKf9DrcelFfJDbcXJRev13wnzL8TD0bPP/Y/Rd77y72MBxP JPNMnklItaLulPHpNUJ5BU88qGCJfQOeQnf5G+rzwv21S+Zz4XYLGfanhd+IY8jtgT gdDbkvE5MR7zN8e0fysvafDGMu9Q8kbmCBMokR2I=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120730101231.047f2550@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:21:48 -0700
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Oauth blog post
In-Reply-To: <39B73AD9-4E8F-4E94-A538-69BE5D8C0E18@gmx.net>
References: <501531F7.5040404@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120729073422.06d8fe10@resistor.net> <39B73AD9-4E8F-4E94-A538-69BE5D8C0E18@gmx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: 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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:01:15 -0000

Hi Hannes,
At 12:19 PM 7/29/2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>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?

It depends on what open participation means in the above.  If it is 
open participation by companies, I don't have any problem with it as 
long as the relevant BCPs are updated to reflect that.

At 11:14 AM 7/29/2012, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>I would find it useful if anyone of you who likes to agree or 
>disagree to have at least read the OAuth specification. I had 
>noticed that many of those who share their valuable thoughts have 
>not even spent the time to look at the document.

I wonder whether I read the OAuth2 specifications. :-)

Regards,
-sm