Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 17:44 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 A1C1B21F8C1D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, 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 yeUTVoyIt+UV for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:44:03 -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 E7AE021F8C11 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9105 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2011 17:40:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 20 Oct 2011 17:40:33 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:40:18 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:40:08 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
Thread-Index: AcyPTRpjT/0VlDtkQzOw3EG7tyHe8wAAhdrw
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723452631E911E@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <725EAF50-3A82-4AAE-8C60-6D4C4AE52A79@gmx.net> <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E72D8313B2@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <CAC4RtVDQJk5Zxud+yW4yzCLPQAakXQKw5qzi5y0aw1X1U-MVtg@mail.gmail.com> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27EB414@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG> <DBB4D0DA-06C1-43CC-965C-8B2DD2E554E4@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <DBB4D0DA-06C1-43CC-965C-8B2DD2E554E4@gmx.net>
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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:44:03 -0000

Who is "we had already decided"? This was not discussed on this list.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:19 AM
> To: Richer, Justin P.
> Cc: OAuth WG; Barry Leiba
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
> 
> Certainly not everyone needs to pay attention to everything. We are,
> however, trying to determine whether there is a critical mass of interested
> persons for a given item in terms of reviews, document authors,
> implementers, and deployers.
> 
> I do not see a problem at all with working on JWT within the OAuth working
> group. I thought that we had already decided in the past that the JSON
> signature & encryption work would go into JOES (earlier WOES) and the
> home for JWT is the OAuth working group. The area directors may have a
> different opinion but for the moment this is my working assumption.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
> 
> > I think it will be true that the whole working group won't be focusing on all
> documents at the same time, much in the same way that different subsets of
> our current WG have focused on things like the security document or SAML
> bindings. In this fashion, I believe we'll be able to pull expertise from
> different sectors to produce a family of documents that live in an ecosystem
> around OAuth.
> >
> > For many of these documents, even though they're not directly OAuth
> pieces (like JWT), but where else should they live? This may not be The Way
> That IETF Does It (I'm honestly not sure), but in my opinion, as long as each
> document has a dedicated editor and at least some interaction/support with
> the group we can handle many of these smaller items.
> >
> > -- Justin
> > ________________________________________
> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [oauth-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of
> > Barry Leiba [barryleiba@computer.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:05 PM
> > To: OAuth WG
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
> >
> >> do we have the band width to work on all these items, as some are big
> >> and some are fairly small and contained. May have to have some
> >> prioritized list of where people think these fit.
> >
> > Yes, exactly.  And one of the things we'd like to hear from all of you
> > is what your priorities are... how you would prioritize the list.
> >
> > Barry, chair-like object
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth