Re: [Txauth] GNAP core document design team

Dick Hardt <> Tue, 28 July 2020 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8A93A0D34 for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.682
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6WOOMRSRXgX for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFA513A0CDF for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f5so21911342ljj.10 for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Lt9/YG3m27GpRgUOsL3ibtZVap7HHbmebpTTGIURJWs=; b=Pz10vioHjIIhyjs9IArD0ud5XxsszvKZdfV6bO1cy+K0Z4KYYd3LHV11arDyxii4FQ RRYgwBUWyihPqBhJCHdHaWPYmpenbsSiqYiEGTbRqWZ2VXHP0Ir/stAJ4bADq8tHmJle M7mMqNpx07FilrGrhvHEC27kE2OkeQaOFaWUyMd1yNrpLIbS9f5nLF8Q4W5dcJGGKe8z 7/XAYwmXjOfVoL/sMTSyUhNCSkiSEGFyfJirPJwL1NvoJtyq7u/PyvXpIpC42gg4YUMe O9icKMzWqQSJfcPnJargpUZ6EOC7f9ClTnQ+CHFn4ShT81SNQniNo9JXBDLcJGdT5KaU jPpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Lt9/YG3m27GpRgUOsL3ibtZVap7HHbmebpTTGIURJWs=; b=TZntMhMc6px0Ai91ZrdzkWCIiEbGKwtST1ylh+zxmpk3QHSrMyItqsH5K7GCze3O9Y EdPm/k7XBXKweFm9NlAJO3mL/5pSG/BklLMhiP9R76a+8Dm2+at07g9Jy40i40vFFeOd d2ttl4RQOq/LbU0Yy3aISIyK5ndS0xMd5xSPQUyNoZd9hQt9XMIh8AAEr9mtK6FKEFHh wK/C4jBiB8bloKCVHFxiL8l7A1LyV/ftX6YQOFS5ItiJ3ksjg4TbbP8HmK8MtCt8jssB AQIIkO11dKssExT5HQvBnfwyMnnUSsT36VwE6hoabVWF3fq2LUAx0Pckxdid9ANk0maP pqWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318xG46mKCERj9RPdgS8OxbhYPYf7kduEwsvf3Kv5J38VIfNtm/ fEWb+BYlpxmorPqbXI9cmAuG8hBEloQqe9QECv0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBlpMIKaZeb2KyxrzUP7H0P8nLHj82NJKUIiZOveM/dLTvNDtSy0TbNuDaSS6LJryEy2/ceqpe2MIlL0BH8RI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9611:: with SMTP id v17mr13357544ljh.110.1595955505824; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dick Hardt <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:57:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Cc: GNAP Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000008a0b05ab8359d4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] GNAP core document design team
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:58:30 -0000

I have some concerns that a goal of a document with the "best features" of
XYZ and XAuth may be a challenge.

As I see it, Justin and I have different perspectives on the "best" way to
do certain features. While it is possible that Justin and I with help from
other members on the design team may align on the "best" way, another
outcome is that the design team will need to get feedback from the full WG
on the different approaches. In this case, the near term goal would be a
mail list discussion of the different approaches, and consensus be
obtained. A document would then be able to be presented by the design team
for WG adoption.

I think the approach taken with the OAuth 2.1 document in the OAuth WG is a
good example of how to get consensus. The OAuth 2.1 document was somewhat
contentious. Before asking for WG adoption, myself and the other authors
led discussions on potentially contentious topics and then got consensus on
each topic and generally agreed wording. The WG call for adoption for the
proposed document has not received any concerns.



On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:30 AM Yaron Sheffer <> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Following our discussion yesterday, we are looking for volunteers for a
> short-term design team. The team’s goal will be to come up with an outline
> of a document combining the best features of XYZ and XAuth. The timeframe
> will be short – a few weeks. If you would like to join, please send the
> chairs a private email by Friday.
> Based on the expressed interest we will pick a small number of individuals
> for the team. We apologize in advance that we will not offer everyone a
> spot on the design team.
> Thanks,
>                 Leif and Yaron
> --
> Txauth mailing list