On 04/24/2012 11:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Indeed you are right, I'd forgotten about that.
The original conclusion was to let oauth progress and move
the discussion to -threats. I brought it up with -threats and
again in last call and got no closure that I recall. Barry's
shepherd review was in response to me bringing up that my
issues had not been resolved in last call.
Mike
On 4/24/12 12:05 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
Barry did make a consensus call when this was originally raised.
EH
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Eran Hammer
Cc: oauth-cha...@tools.ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-
threatmodel
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
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
