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

Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 18:05 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 E832021F86FD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, 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 dI2ibuHSWThx for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex2out04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex2out04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [184.168.131.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B4621F8702 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P3PWEX2HT001.ex2.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.9]) by p3plex2out04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id 1u5v1j0080CJzpC01u5vnm; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:05:55 -0700
Received: from P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net ([169.254.8.115]) by P3PWEX2HT001.ex2.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.9]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:05:55 -0700
From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel
Thread-Index: AQHNIfK7r7KmwuXA4kSoc9MS46QExJaqbLCAgAAaSoD//6DfUIAAfwgA//+e4SA=
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:05:55 +0000
Message-ID: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FFC677@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
References: <CALaySJLy6jpuPqxQXfKfpx0TpcK1gav1NtcTOoh+NOr11JSCbw@mail.gmail.com> <4F8DE789.4030704@mtcc.com> <CALaySJK1ej_HkP5Jz26XT-KjULirD2iFfVOpRkHgPZp-CbJCrg@mail.gmail.com> <4F957EA7.3060004@mtcc.com> <OF3ECF645E.478720A4-ON802579EA.002D0B13-802579EA.002D8D07@ie.ibm.com> <4F96A99F.7010303@mtcc.com> <85556C53-99DD-47A2-A0D5-2F86DD2B668F@oracle.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FFC41C@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <4F96DA70.4020108@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4F96DA70.4020108@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.74.213.174]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel
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, 24 Apr 2012 18:05:57 -0000

Berry did make a consensus call when this was originally raised.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:53 AM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-
> threatmodel
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 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
> 
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk+W2nAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxQyACgyCDPDrxbFKLcntB2uu8TF
> +Zu
> F24AoIfDHW+Z88nE16Wt+iLn+Dqch50l
> =5WMm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----