Re: Oauth blog post

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Sun, 29 July 2012 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 2BB3D21F855F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 WGuDdBRsGa1t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B6721F847A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so8569451pbc.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=XEadlIjlhHumU+w0AyTGQUXXZUXRWrTI+V3RtI1RwJk=; b=XWsErg4tekVLkgTybMyxYi2vZUHJOh3H0u4L2W6XiRGAPCniUhbvzXFdCNC7dxJLJU vYvWfNp1YAeBomhtyfH9NFcBX7wPZTdleea/vxLDrPRfNGCOWlpgl6eQmurwg/kH9+X5 xPFIIwmECrYMdqQfAGcXzpVga1u/lG/S/REMyg2TvrslYPjGe9x4d3vhR5SzA7Ki9xuJ mM++YW/U0s06lsJt9hDnwBnzl6pvLH8dEkEg1+NqH2NzdQ5KHm5f8+hDZiJ0WK73tK3t ZxSDT+/dCQWA4f8U5ofAPN+kbdS57fUryzWDxeZIpEsmIiq3EZYjKqVFttblAcVyp241 Jpcg==
Received: by 10.68.223.35 with SMTP id qr3mr30524218pbc.83.1343593072077; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.195] (216-19-185-109.dyn.novuscom.net. [216.19.185.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wh7sm2751828pbc.33.2012.07.29.13.17.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Oauth blog post
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-DqH7tn/1kuvBScQgoo+O"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:17:48 +0700
Message-ID: <1343593068.9245.0.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
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 20:17:53 -0000

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?