Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 B441821F8DC8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, 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 rLhOMiEUvWVg for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4545A21F8DC5 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28434 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2011 01:36:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 7 Sep 2011 01:36:42 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:36:42 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:36:35 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
Thread-Index: Acxs/phTBunCH+5ARXiEhTuW2h1K3g==
Message-ID: <7A070C60-14E3-46B0-95DD-BC9335EF6D10@hueniverse.com>
References: <4E665B25.6090709@mtcc.com> <CD0B1909-8298-4CC3-B273-7B26E71EAB31@hueniverse.com> <4E666512.7010701@mtcc.com> <F4839FCD-CA73-4450-AD12-E07D46BB7746@hueniverse.com> <4E6667D1.3080404@mtcc.com> <1315334677.26387.YahooMailNeo@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E666B65.30701@mtcc.com> <29815937-0FB9-463B-B6E4-8FCAF7B3CD8C@hueniverse.com> <4E666E73.3050502@mtcc.com> <CAMrm-MJHKTxaj1iEm_Lr=X92sOiWZcYN4F6dNqb5w5gh4OPndQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E6671FA.3090503@gmail.com> <4E667469.2040007@mtcc.com> <1315337809.3136.38.camel@ground> <4E667953.9020906@mtcc.com> <71A460EE-1E2C-4165-99A8-5A97D6E9365C@jkemp.net> <4E667E2E.7090304@mtcc.com> <80A88920-A1EF-4A1C-A97E-F99379923CFB@jkemp.net> <4E66845E.7090906@mtcc.com> <E3DEC4C8-6BB0-44EE-821A-7589F5DC6462@jkemp.net> <4E669D3C.5000900@gmail.com> <4E66B964.2060808@stpeter.im> <4E66BFF0.9020008@gmail.com> <4E66C407.9090209@stpeter.im> <4E66C521.5070804@mtcc.com> <BE965137-7EC9-4F92-945C-AD39066211E5@hueniverse.com> <4E66C897.703@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E66C897.703@mtcc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
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: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:34:54 -0000

*I* am not going to do anything to move this forward which means nothing will happen unless someone propose text. Even the chairs can't instruct the editor to produce new prose.

All the chairs are going to do is give you the same answer. If you want the wg to consider anything at this point you must provide text. In fact, they already issued this clear instructions. 

Now, the overwhelming resistance to such a change would make *me* reconsider spending my time on this of I was in your position, but proposing text is the only advise the chairs can offer you at this point. 

If you think you can offer text that will win wg consensus you should. Arguing with me as a participant is, unfortunately, part of the deal. 

EHL

On Sep 6, 2011, at 18:27, "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/2011 06:24 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> You clearly feel strongly about this. The only way forward if you want to pursue this is to suggest text and show how providing it will lead to more secure implementations. Otherwise this is just going in circles.
>> 
> 
> Didn't you just get done announcing how you weren't going to do anything
> under any circumstances unless you were forced to by the chairs? I think
> I'll wait for them to chime in before I waste my time.
> 
> Mike