Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04

"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB79421E8045; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 20GTsKPAcYBA; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D0A21E8042; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=gsalguei@cisco.com; l=4159; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1336160988; x=1337370588; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=HCAcemyufsnhZ9/vYKf5+uEmzD1JN3TvTa3rMhTO5qA=; b=Y1Ok5HleoCBnDHpADviMPlPKnqm7ddX/Jz4AKrQDblhgsrp6DOqtojId LhrFjctBcXxrvE6U6CwOATEP5kD6WOHxYaDdhUvy/0zOjqukcfpWhXtnP ae2SAoLJxa/4Bt3sBc+1ZO4+FvjRmytJAbEVEiVfmfJDMADmn1Xefp8SU 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEIAHcypE+tJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFgkaDKKx7AoEHggkBAQEDAQEBAQ8BEApBCwULAgEIBD4CAicwAQEEEyKHZgULmxCNFpJtBI91NWMEiDCNTo5ZgWmDBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,533,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80516618"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 May 2012 19:49:48 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q44JnmMw007714; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:49:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-204.cisco.com ([72.163.62.211]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 4 May 2012 14:49:48 -0500
Received: from 72.163.62.211 ([72.163.62.211]) by XMB-RCD-204.cisco.com ([72.163.62.211]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 4 May 2012 19:49:47 +0000
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-36A76E19-206D-4516-BFD6-B3EF0EF685A3"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-ID: <5876011F-2C2C-4889-9452-E8BDC1438713@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04
Thread-Index: Ac0qLw91jpuP0JfARCag29xw1SJcwA==
From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 15:49:42 -0400
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2012 19:49:48.0306 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FF38720:01CD2A2F]
Cc: oauth@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:49:49 -0000

I support this doc being adopted as starting point for WG discussion.

Regards,

Gonzalo


On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

> The above-named draft has been offered as the recommended path forward in terms of converging on a single document to advance through appsawg.  The conversation I saw this week in that regard has seemed mostly positive.
>  
> Please review it, or at least the diff, and indicate your support or objection on apps-discuss@ietf.org to adopting this one as the common path forward. We would like to make a decision about which one to begin advancing in the next week or two.
>  
> Have a good weekend!
>  
> -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair
>  
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss