Am 15.10.2010 19:52, schrieb David Recordon:
Hey Hannes, I'd like to at least explain my reasoning behind not
planning to go to the China meeting because it really isn't
restrictions around travel. This is likely inpolitic to say, but it's
because of how much of a waste of my time the LA meeting was. The LA
meeting contained numerous people who weren't – and still aren't –
engaged in this working group who felt that they should argue with
us repeatedly around how what we were doing was wrong and already
solved by Kerberos. That trip was only two days, but China will easily
be a week. So for me it is about what is the best use of my time, not
just how much it costs.
I'd love to have another face to face meeting between people working
actively on deploying OAuth 2.0. I hope that IIW in a few weeks will
provide a venue for some of that. But if it's in Europe then I'll go
to Europe. For me it is about who is (and isn't) going to be there
rather than where the meeting is physically located.
I fully agree with you. Unfortunately, I had assumed to meet the WG
people at IETF meetings and it's to late for me to arrange for a travel
to IIW (mainly du to administrative proccess).
regards,
Torsten.
--David
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
<hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com>> wrote:
Hi Torsten,
We have to figure out what the most efficient way is to get our work
done.
With the Prague IETF we will see again whether there is a need for
face-to-face meeting. We had phone conference calls earlier this
year as
well. That's another option to make progress in addition to the
usage of
the mailing list.
Attending the IETF meetings is useful to get a better understanding of
the big picture and that's why I go there. However, I understand that
others have travel restrictions. Meetings outside the US, like
this one,
are obviously more expensive for those who are based in the US.
Ciao
Hannes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>
[mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>]
> On Behalf Of ext tors...@lodderstedt.net
<mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:13 PM
> To: Eliot Lear; igor.faynb...@alcatel-lucent.com
<mailto:igor.faynb...@alcatel-lucent.com>
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth session at IETF-79
>
> What is the alternative from your point of view?
>
> Regards,
> Torsten.
> ------Originalnachricht------
> Von: Eliot Lear
> An:igor.faynb...@alcatel-lucent.com
<mailto:an%3aigor.faynb...@alcatel-lucent.com>
> Cc:Lodderstedt, Torsten
> Cc:oauth@ietf.org <mailto:cc%3aoa...@ietf.org>
> Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth session at IETF-79
> Gesendet: 15. Okt. 2010 13:10
>
> I agree with Hannes' approach. What happened in Maastricht
> was that we
> ended up with bifurcated discussions- in the room and on the list.
> That didn't seem very productive.
>
>
> Gesendet mit BlackBerry(r) Webmail von Telekom Deutschland
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
