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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:53 AM
>> To: Eran Hammer
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> 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
>