Re: Oauth blog post

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 29 July 2012 15:23 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 8C17B21F861F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ongeDv8gZWKQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:23:18 -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 5CFF621F8592 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:23:18 -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 q6TFNDqC006530; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1343575394; bh=RmiXQA+FTO5vfPuluRfAusIuGKdmVn4RgXW0vpWptUs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=1YSUOxQe3/ymfHmYZjMIAvUkB8GXUaL1GT1BRiiupCE4ISQUNXSclmrFmya1A/Sfh YzLYAEFz6iuNWL38n9AGv8iZ0ytXJanwJLPPvUpnfkJq+qtp6+w+FbjajIiLxG6LcU ssMxSUDnniCfCo0H3BRg1KED1OgqNlCbAZ0YPNgs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1343575394; i=@resistor.net; bh=RmiXQA+FTO5vfPuluRfAusIuGKdmVn4RgXW0vpWptUs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=VRtY1JsOcwMHgRafAC5KjkZHZyaecrhm9YM4PFPbkZV0KOg/GxZK75iX3XWfRgEVS uYSDVLsliEA1B+65+w9njwRsvHrnSTH/p0dwB1Mn5bpSSgqoxznUr+Fuksd9P0s5H/ S1xnE1T7fPAVn5n0rv5ylsgquNzpVI2Q2OoWmX0s=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120729073422.06d8fe10@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:20:03 -0700
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Oauth blog post
In-Reply-To: <501531F7.5040404@gmail.com>
References: <501531F7.5040404@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 15:23:20 -0000

Hi Yaron,
At 05:52 AM 7/29/2012, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>this blog post ( 
>http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell/) 
>by the editor of OAuth 2.0 made the rounds of 
>the geek news outlets: Slashdot, CNet etc. I am 
>sure many people on this list have seen it. But 
>I have seen no reactions on this list, nor on 
>the SAAG list. Is this too unimportant to 
>discuss? Is there nothing we, as an organization, can learn from it?

OAuth2 is more within Apps than SAAG.  People 
discuss about topics they are interested instead 
of what you or I would consider as important.  I 
don't know whether the IETF learns anything from 
its failures.  It can always redefine failure so 
that it becomes known as success. :-)

It is to Eran's credit that he did not seek all 
the credit when he could have done so.  What I 
could learn from that is that "doing the right 
thing" will be forgotten when it is convenient to 
do so.  The WG Chairs did something unusual to 
try and resolve the situation.  That's in the 
mailing list archive for anyone to read if the 
person thinks that it is important.

I'll highlight the following:

   "[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 enterprise… and me."

It's not the first time that this occurs.  It is 
up to the IETF to assess whether it is detrimental to have such an outcome.

Regards,
-sm