IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)

Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 13 May 2010 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB4C3A6918 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.348, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPr3BamtcT1P for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f200.google.com (mail-qy0-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AED3A68BC for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38so442649qyk.17 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ae7gxTPzqkaWDIIiJmvJnLl7/F0LK3RWHX55dxqDq2s=; b=O71wpEx8rJYPUJxiCC2DGDKq0gpbhOOY2nl/vNk1nAGvNS/VkywSnU1ujhfjDoMuro iaHi4lenkH2WMSHeVNvgzr0az2BrKLoBTgN6ncuGc42d7qV5VeU1LaMSV6QZSv40vV+d TH1K0pIdwYdi4cf9TnPjlYnpxJxCXU4P3G/pQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=FLYRanrDBTj+gGJOOGC57UqdqbScxTaLEhLf2gWzVTDsDgbLvWsrE6briIrR1QxcBp cAbEzdp5OYGBar8IdqZqSDx0Yv7DeB+YcIl7iSj9Q8J1r/pW3U42eXe1aOFD1WcVt5C3 agUNUQ+/BDcxI19lQ1u2I04UJDcKcr9vilp1I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.43.100 with SMTP id v36mr73022qae.201.1273793196205; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.99.142 with HTTP; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3B69895B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <ADB082E11CEB5D49A3CC03E49DCECE02378CB8A679@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3B698808@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A42BFCC@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3B69895B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:26:36 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimiSqQjOsxDMxFGjIkP3xDQVHge6OJUPu9CYxHf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:26:51 -0000

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> There is clearly no consensus for either A or B. There was mostly no objection to C,
> and the reason given by most of those who objected was client complexity with the current proposal solves.

My objection to C was that your examples were buggy. So, to be
tediously explicit:

B, then A. Not C.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email