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

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 18:53 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 F0C0621F8573 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.970, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ZKzl78lavjGw for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AB421F853B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q48Ir4vM002078 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 14:53:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-vpn4-1896.cisco.com (rtp-vpn4-1896.cisco.com [10.82.215.104]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q48Ir3aa016231; Tue, 8 May 2012 14:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D43D9A24-8499-4D91-8A64-2BF256A4AB34@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 14:52:31 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E199AF5-39B4-46F5-86FC-C0884480EDEB@cisco.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5876011F-2C2C-4889-9452-E8BDC1438713@cisco.com> <D43D9A24-8499-4D91-8A64-2BF256A4AB34@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: oauth@ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <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: Tue, 08 May 2012 18:53:07 -0000

Hannes: While I'm clearly honored by your interest in me and my activities, it is not my intent to artificially pump up a document on which I am a co-author.  Everyone on this list knows I am an author on it as we have discussed it exhaustively for the past month and a half. I was merely indicating my support of the compromised direction being proposed (as we were at a bit of an impasse with two documents in call for adoption that were proposing a solution for the same problem space). It took a good bit of on-list and off-list discussion for the SWD and WF camps to draw a line in the sand and come to an agreement on a compromise that was a mutually satisfying starting point that the WG could get behind. This proposal was put forth (and supported) separately by Mike Jones (a co-author on SWD) and Paul Jones (a co-author on WF). I, as another co-author of WF, was voicing my support of the compromise as a starting point. I don't believe any of the co-authors involved were at fault or acted with irregularity.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On May 8, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> Gonzalo: it is great that you, as a co-author, support your own document but I don't think it is particular helpful. 
> 
> On May 4, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
>