Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel

On 04/24/2012 11:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Indeed you are right, I'd forgotten about that.

The original conclusion was to let oauth progress and move
the discussion to -threats. I brought it up with -threats and
again in last call and got no closure that I recall. Barry's
shepherd review was in response to me bringing up that my
issues had not been resolved in last call.

Mike

>
> On 4/24/12 12:05 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
>> Barry did make a consensus call when this was originally raised.
>>
>> EH
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:53 AM
>>> To: Eran Hammer
>>> Cc: oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-
>>> threatmodel
>>>
>> On 4/24/12 10:20 AM, Eran Hammer wrote:
>>>>> We've been kicking this can of silliness for months now because one
>>>>> person refuses to move on even in the face of otherwise unanimous
>>>>> consensus from the group.
>> Hi Eran,
>>
>> Cans of silliness aside, I'd like to make a brief meta point: we don't vote. So
>> consensus is not a matter of counting noses, it is a matter of addressing valid
>> technical issues that people raise. I shall re-read this thread and related
>> earlier threads to see if the issues raised by Michael Thomas have been
>> answered, but if there are open issues then we need to address them. Now,
>> it might be that he hasn't accepted the answers provided, in which case he
>> might be "in the rough". That's the chairs' call. But it's not necessarily a simple
>> matter of saying that one person disagrees therefore we can move on.
>> However, I think you know that anyway. :)
>>
>> Peter
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth