On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
**
Do you think that corporate domination of open standards development is
OK?
Do you think that's actually what we do around here? I can think of
counterexamples if you need some.
-MSK
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Hannes,
At 12:19 PM 7/29/2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the
discussions.
Do you
Hi Murray,
At 09:13 AM 8/2/2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on
what an employer is insisting on doing, or that person's opinion.
Yes.
We purport to participate
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [superu...@gmail.com]
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on what
an employer is insisting on doing, or that person's opinion.
But it is possible, over a period of time,
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 16:58 -0400, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [superu...@gmail.com]
I think it's impossible to determine with certainty whether someone
standing at the mic and asserting a position is doing so based on what
an employer is insisting on doing,
In the identity management case we are not necessarily talking about solutions
that are good or bad. The issue is that certain people care about one use
case and other people care about other use cases. I use the term use case in
a generic sense to also include certain deployment assumptions
Hi SM,
On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:21 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Hannes,
At 12:19 PM 7/29/2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the
discussions.
Do you think open
From: Glen Zorn [glenz...@gmail.com]
I suppose that that may be one reason why my experiences with
corporate manipulation (or domination, if you prefer) of the IETF have
been of people with those very reputations blocking good ideas that
threatened the interests of their employer. It's
Whose library? (rhetorical question).
In my experience, the issue is pretty straight forward and its what
this OAUTH fellow exemplified - technology leaders taking control of a
standard for their strategic benefit. This is not a phenomenon, its
par for the course and its a principle reason
Hi Hannes,
At 12:19 PM 7/29/2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate
in the discussions.
Do you think open participation is wrong?
It depends on what open
http://www.scifac.ru.ac.za/cspt/hoare.htm
Hi Yaron,
At 05:52 AM 7/29/2012, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
this blog post (
http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell/)
by the editor of OAuth 2.0 made the rounds of
the geek news outlets: Slashdot, CNet etc. I am
sure many people on this list have seen it. But
I have seen no
their valuable thoughts have not even spent the time to look at the
document.
Hannes
Sent from my Windows Phone
-Original Message-
From: ext SM
Sent: 7/29/2012 8:23 AM
To: Yaron Sheffer; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Oauth blog post
Hi Yaron,
At 05:52 AM 7/29/2012, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
this blog
Just a minor comment on this one:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, SM wrote:
[the] working group at the IETF started with strong web presence. But as the
work dragged on (and on) past its first year, those web folks left along
with
every member of the original 1.0 community. The group
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 12:19 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Just a minor comment on this one:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, SM wrote:
[the] working group at the IETF started with strong web presence. But as
the
work dragged on (and on) past its first year, those web folks left
Watching a play starting with the third act is always interesting but not
informative.
If there's a dispute worthy of attention by the *whole IETF membership*, could
someone please summarize it (in a reasonably unbiased way) to bring the rest of
us up to speed?
Dale
Do you think that corporate domination of open standards development is OK?
The barrier for participation is low since there are no membership fees, etc.
Nevertheless, those who participate in standardization efforts have to spend
their time. So, typically those who participate for a
Eran, the editor of a specification in the OAuth working group, had decided to
step down from his editor-role because the group did not agree with certain
design decisions (particularly with a security design decision). That happens
also in other groups. Nothing uncommon so far.
He then wrote
On Jul 29, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 12:19 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Just a minor comment on this one:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM, SM wrote:
[the] working group at the IETF started with strong web presence. But as
the
work dragged on (and
Hi Yoav,
Hi
Like Dale, I haven't followed the play throughout the life of OAuth (the
working group)
Barely anyone has done that.
Who are these corporations that dominate the working group? Are they content
providers like Facebook, Twitter, or Disney? Are they ISPs? Is it General
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 23:37 +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
...
The IETF allows open participation and, as such, everyone, including
companies that develop enterprise software, are free to participate in the
discussions.
Do you think open participation is wrong?
Do you think that
From: Hannes Tschofenig [hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net]
Eran claims that enterprise identity management equipment manufacturer
dominate the discussion.
There's a common problem in the IETF that the development of a standard is
dominated by companies that incorporate the standard into their
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 13:28 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Do you think that corporate domination of open standards development is
OK?
The barrier for participation is low since there are no membership fees, etc.
For participation, yes, all that is needed is an email account; if
Trying to step away from the big vendors vs. users discussion...
I admit I have not followed events in the oauth WG, but I did read
Eran's post and his own follow-on comments, plus some others' who were
burnt by our processes. Some may want to construe it as IETF bashing,
but what I'm reading
I certainly agree that the participation in the face-to-face meetings is indeed
more costly. For leadership positions (as you call them) such participation is
indeed important.
On Jul 29, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 13:28 -0700, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Do
It sounds indeed great to involve those communities that use the technology.
However, I don't see an easy way to accomplish that when we talk about a really
large community.
For example, many people use TLS and they are not all in the TLS WG working
group. I am not even talking about
I have not been involved in the OAuth design processes, but for the
last few months, I’ve been a heavy user of production OAuth2 software.
Which I felt gave me a platform to comment on the issue:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2012/07/28/Oauth2-dead
-Tim
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:57
From: Yaron Sheffer [yaronf.i...@gmail.com]
[...] but what I'm reading is three concrete statements that IETF
members can respond to, and (if we accept them as true) consider how
to address in the future:
- A Web-focused protocol was forced to adopt enterprise use cases.
[...]
My first
28 matches
Mail list logo
