IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 1D7F321E8029 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 kDg9mDC7vWin for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5544421E8020 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 5v391j0090as01C01v3D7n; Fri, 04 May 2012 12:03:13 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Xth4yC59 c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=x7RSzEbT3xAA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=22iR80tViS9illKqAbMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=sbfrhPoBMooTZVdHI1MA:9 a=zPYLrieAM3FdFMxYZ3oA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 4 May 2012 10:31:47 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-jones-appsawg-webfinger-04
Thread-Index: Ac0qG8eE3EKALRWtQ/iIIohy4m6GpQ==
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 17:31:46 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CA@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810E4CAexchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1336158193; bh=RQgAEHL1uN7TE9LxdOtLHf7CM+FHkDDhB+3Ac9c+QvA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Vqx2gcno/F7yGCHeGxtNNkFOTx3N/2NzUsv/ztID1VzYJn4D3DCWJPMe5zw+MMKlL oXV6mfPII9fVYaB+AHid1egJJz/5QXqIVlgxv4ZEeWmbdqOctwUnHE4PBZZzF+jy6X BbhKZdfa4I6ivK3epmrL0aU8UHInIzPLiwJ0qw6I=
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] 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: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:02:49 -0000

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<mailto: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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email