Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth session at IETF-79

From: Torsten Lodderstedt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:05:46 +0200

Will there be a OAuth session at IETF-79? The agenda currently does 
not contain such a session (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/79/).

regards,
Torsten.

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:40:45 +0300

No, there is not going to be a session at IETF79. We intentionally did not request a slot because of the IETF78 experience. 

On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:

> Will there be a OAuth session at IETF-79? The agenda currently does not contain such a session (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/79/).
> 
> regards,
> Torsten.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: Torsten Lodderstedt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:27:21 +0200

I'm surprised, since there is a lot to talk about. For example, I 
planned to present (together with Mark) the current status of the 
security consideration work (e.g. threat model). Moreover, there are 
several I-Ds waiting for promotion to WG item. How will we proceed here?

Who else of the WG planned to come to IETF-79?

regards,
Torsten.

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 03:25:28 -0400

I echo Torsten's concern.

I definitely plan to come, and Torsten's and Mark's security discussion 
was one, perhaps the most important, of several that I planned to 
participate in. and where I expect many others will. 

Then there are new use cases, too, coming different place, and it would 
be good to settle on them and freeze the document at soon as possible so 
that all new features in 2.0 could be introduced only if they are needed 
by one or another use case. 

The problem with the last meeting's "low energy" and respective 
attendance, in my opinion, is one word: vacation. For many people the 
meeting just came in the midst of it...

Igor

Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>> No, there is not going to be a session at IETF79. We intentionally 
>> did not request a slot because of the IETF78 experience.
>>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:10:23 +0200

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.