Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] R: draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04

Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <romeda@gmail.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 1DBB321F85C4; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 zE2ZSTuNiJle; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80DD21F85C2; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so4550009lag.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 07 May 2012 23:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CHqqTCvn+dFkGCAp2J6+QwyOokSSSR3Bv5TTf/nmAps=; b=EoKIS66ujabwvB/0posTm5KGgcHqe9K5cejyMjzYVZnlIcKp89o9LmtHNbXPZlb3OD aZZL9NP+zqLLm7PBztybQnSKBfeIG4eJYaT0t6zR7LStIBdCg8de6IwB61faaQIbo9Xf h1VydtOBOEc8lV14ejpDTq+pvjFva1FWUkCHxeecm3sh/grysepp0kVWpta0hKH/AGus 554gSB/Hep6jDGq3i6EQvGD2YQfsi2fAPqjJgBDRfJezZwo11HHo8G+5vv0qMpUwSu/4 KV4YQ+vqlJJGa4BSGXF510jRgsCtiKVRQT9sW3IJGuUPSY8OkoLBbE+4fnyCtJOaCMHs uRgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.146.163 with SMTP id td3mr16605432lab.25.1336459247613; Mon, 07 May 2012 23:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.24.229 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.24.229 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2012 23:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FA7CB3A.4020000@packetizer.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <5876011F-2C2C-4889-9452-E8BDC1438713@cisco.com> <A09A9E0A4B9C654E8672D1DC003633AE52EE435611@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <4FA7CB3A.4020000@packetizer.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:40:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAz=sck0hhyTWMz4LSDcZoO6btBKe4ajac_sKgeL520wrNc7_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f234567b5f66d04bf80aa04
Cc: Goix Laurent Walter <laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it>, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] R: draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04
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, 08 May 2012 06:40:51 -0000

I disagree that the current spec is a good starting point - the issues I've
raised have been ignored, and the spec is now much more complicated from
both sides of the implementation fence.
On May 7, 2012 3:17 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

>  Walter,
>
> I'm not sure what the full set of issues will be, but I only have a couple
> of small edits queued for -05 at present (one being "template" should be
> "href" in the example at the end of 4.2 that you pointed out to me
> privately).  We've already worked through a number of issues to get to this
> point, so there may not be a lot of changes needed.  I'll not dismiss the
> possibility that there are editorial issues, but I hope we've resolved most
> of the technical details.
>
> We probably still need to have the discussion of keeping CORS and what
> additions are needed to the security section.  We've made a few changes
> there already, but I'm not sure if it still fully addresses some of the
> privacy concerns.
>
> Paul
>
> On 5/7/2012 5:37 AM, Goix Laurent Walter wrote:
>
>  I also support this draft as a way forward for the discussion that I
> think captures the essence of both philosophies. ****
>
> ** **
>
> If such basis is agreed what are the major pending issues?****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards****
>
> Laurent-walter****
>
> ** **
>
> *Da:* apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>]
> *Per conto di *Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
> *Inviato:* venerdì 4 maggio 2012 21.50
> *A:* Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org; apps-discuss@ietf.org
> *Oggetto:* Re: [apps-discuss] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04****
>
> ** **
>
> I support this doc being adopted as starting point for WG discussion.****
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Gonzalo****
>
> ** **
>
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 3:03 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  The above-named draft has been offered as the recommended path forward
> in terms of converging on a single document to advance through appsawg.
> The conversation I saw this week in that regard has seemed mostly positive.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Please review it, or at least the diff, and indicate your support or
> objection on apps-discuss@ietf.org to adopting this one as the common
> path forward. We would like to make a decision about which one to begin
> advancing in the next week or two.****
>
>  ****
>
> Have a good weekend!****
>
>  ****
>
> -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair****
>
>  ****
>
>  _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>