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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 24 April 2012 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 6F78621F8750 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, 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 3pu3SchR3jY8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD4D21F87A7 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8538940058; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:24:42 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4F96EC80.40902@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:10:08 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
References: <CALaySJLy6jpuPqxQXfKfpx0TpcK1gav1NtcTOoh+NOr11JSCbw@mail.gmail.com> <4F8DE789.4030704@mtcc.com> <CALaySJK1ej_HkP5Jz26XT-KjULirD2iFfVOpRkHgPZp-CbJCrg@mail.gmail.com> <4F957EA7.3060004@mtcc.com> <OF3ECF645E.478720A4-ON802579EA.002D0B13-802579EA.002D8D07@ie.ibm.com> <4F96A99F.7010303@mtcc.com> <85556C53-99DD-47A2-A0D5-2F86DD2B668F@oracle.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FFC41C@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <4F96DA70.4020108@stpeter.im> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FFC677@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
In-Reply-To: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FFC677@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel
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, 24 Apr 2012 18:10:10 -0000

Indeed you are right, I'd forgotten about that.

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
>