IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 11 May 2012 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 1171F21F860E for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.465
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 IMLa-bhGa-MN for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF2F21F8608 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4B70JSZ023116; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120510235528.0a735658@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:59:49 -0700
To: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201026CA8@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2. secureserver.net>
References: <7D98C51F-84D8-48AA-B94D-EABE4D0921DB@gmx.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201026B48@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943664CE3AE@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201026CA8@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec
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, 11 May 2012 07:00:27 -0000

Hi Eran,
At 16:04 09-05-2012, Eran Hammer wrote:
>The IESG members rely on the editor to represent the WG decisions to 
>them when addressing issues. You failed to do that, promoted your 
>personal view, and now we are having this discussion all over again 
>- a discussion that last time was only resolved by creating the 
>design committee.

Isn't it up the Document Shepherd to coordinate the resolution of 
DISCUSS or COMMENT items?

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email