IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 21 October 2010 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729223A6987 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E+bYgji4aYCl for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A7B33A6973 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25026 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2010 05:56:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 21 Oct 2010 05:56:39 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:56:38 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:56:35 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
Thread-Index: ActwiFxzp9HdMnUmRay4Vt+jFE86wAAW9iuA
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D46A5847D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTik30oVX+AevGCZDHajjyrDnEVB=fp6rAdihkPFz@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739431D4FCC3E@TK5EX14MBXC203.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <AANLkTikn2CQ7bBTMZf0YJ3WCcnWUjKMLYx=GNu9PaF86@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikn2CQ7bBTMZf0YJ3WCcnWUjKMLYx=GNu9PaF86@mail.gmail.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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 05:55:08 -0000

This is not a comment about Mike's generous offer.

Choosing an editor is the sole discretion of the chairs. While the working group can offer the chairs feedback, it is best done directly because of the personal nature of selecting people. At the end, the chairs choose the person they want for the role. I just want to make sure people understand how this works, and to avoid debating roles in the same way we argue about technical details.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Marius Scurtescu
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:55 AM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Mike Jones
> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I am willing to serve as editor for the bearer token specification and have
> my management's approval to do so.  Furthermore, I believe that I am
> qualified, having successfully served as an editor for several standards
> specifications, including the OASIS IMI specification and related SAML token
> profiles, the OpenID PAPE specification, and (some time ago), the POSIX
> Threads standard.
> >
> >                                -- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Blaine Cook
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:32 PM
> > To: oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
> >
> > Over the past few weeks, the working group debated the issues around
> the introduction of signatures and the structure of the specification.
> > The working group seems to endorse the proposal to split the current
> specification into two parts: one including section 5 (bearer token) and the
> other including the rest (how to obtain a token), with an additional
> specification covering signature use cases.
> >
> > This serves as a call for consensus on the proposed editorial work.
> > Before we proceed with the changes, the chairs would like to ask if anyone
> has any concerns or objections against this proposal.
> >
> > In addition, the chairs are seeking a volunteer to take over the bearer
> token specification (section 5) as editor.
> >
> > Please submit your comments by Wednesday, October 20th.
> >
> > - The OAuth Working Group Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email