Subject: [OAUTH-WG] 2010 kickoff

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:55:21 -0700

<hats type='chair'/>

Happy New Year!

It's clear that the OAuth WG has a lot of work to do. To facilitate this
work, we propose to hold a series of interim conference calls (with
chatroom side channel) leading up to the face-to-face meeting at IETF 77
in March. The interim sessions will serve two main purposes:

1. More clearly define the problems we want to solve, including new
delegation use cases from the WRAP efforts.

2. Drive to consensus on solutions by gathering input from all WG
participants and quickly iterating on relevant Internet-Drafts.

IETF 77 will happen the week of March 22. That's 10+ weeks from now.
To make a lot of progress before then, the group will need to be focused
and disciplined. Therefore we propose to hold a 30-60 minute meeting
once a week, on Thursdays at 17:00 UTC ( = 9:00 PST / 18:00 CET etc.).
You could think of it as "OAuThursday". :)

Because of IETF reporting requirements, we'll need to announce each
meeting at least two weeks in advance, which means we could hold the
first meeting on January 21. If you have objections to this proposed
schedule, please post to the list in the next 24 hours. If there are no
strenuous objections, we will send out the first meeting notice 24 hours
from now to meet the IETF requirements. We realize that not everyone who
is interested will be able to attend each interim session, but we are
counting on the fact that enough people will attend each meeting so that
we can make strong progress.

More soon.

Peter Saint-Andre & Blaine Cook
co-chairs, OAuth WG

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:10:00 -0500

Sounds reasonable to me, although it does interrupt my Thursday lunch  
break, EST :)
--Richard

On Jan 5, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: Eve Maler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:03:59 -0800

Hi Peter and Blaine-- Though I know the hassle of trying to find an optimal time, I'm wondering if I can ask for a slight adjustment.  The User-Managed Access (UMA)[1] effort, whose core protocol spec[2] is realized as a profile directly on top of OAuth, has 90-minute weekly meetings that totally overlap your proposed time[3].  I know of at least two of us who would definitely want to attend the OAuth meeting series, and there are likely others[4].

(Unrelatedly, is it really possible that the OAuth meetings *wouldn't* stretch to 60 minutes every time? :-)

Thanks for your consideration.

	Eve

[1] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Home
[2] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/UMA+1.0+Core+Protocol
[3] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Meetings+and+Minutes
[4] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Participant+Roster

> Peter Saint-Andre & Blaine Cook

Eve Maler
[email-masked]
http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:05:56 -0700

On 1/5/10 4:03 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
> Hi Peter and Blaine-- Though I know the hassle of trying to find an
> optimal time, I'm wondering if I can ask for a slight adjustment.
> The User-Managed Access (UMA)[1] effort, whose core protocol spec[2]
> is realized as a profile directly on top of OAuth, has 90-minute
> weekly meetings that totally overlap your proposed time[3].  I know
> of at least two of us who would definitely want to attend the OAuth
> meeting series, and there are likely others[4].

I'm not wedded to that time, I just wanted to propose *something*. Would
you prefer earlier, later, or a different day?

> (Unrelatedly, is it really possible that the OAuth meetings
> *wouldn't* stretch to 60 minutes every time? :-)

That depends on how dictatorial the chairs are. You'd be surprised.

/psa

---

From: Eve Maler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:38:46 -0800

> you prefer earlier, later, or a different day?

An hour (or more) earlier, or an hour and a half (or more) later, would be ideal from my perspective -- thanks for being willing to consider a change like this.

> That depends on how dictatorial the chairs are. You'd be surprised.

Aha -- I have faith in you. ;)

	Eve

Eve Maler
[email-masked]

---

From: "Paul C. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:53:50 -0800

FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Eve: in the UMA calls and definitely
interested in participating in the OAuth calls.

Paul

---

From: Dick Hardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 03:08:45 +0000

On 2010-01-05, at 1:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Therefore we propose to hold a 30-60 minute meeting

How about 18:00 UTC?

After lunch EST. Not too early PST. Avoids most overlap with UMA.

btw: implicit +1 to weekly call

-- Dick

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:19:54 -0700

<hat type='chair'/>

> After lunch EST. Not too early PST. Avoids most overlap with UMA.

The UMA schedule considers Pacific Time to be canonical (oh how
parochial! :) but 09:00-10:30 Pacific is currently UTC-08:00 which means
that their meeting runs until 18:30 UTC. We could do 19:00 UTC but that
is 20:00 for most folks in Europe. Blaine said that anything until 01:00
UTC would work for him, so perhaps we can try 19:00 UTC on January 21st
and change it after that if it causes problems.

And despite the cutesy name I'm not attached to OAuThursday, so Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday would work fine as well. (I think Friday is out
because our friends in Europe presumably have something better to do on
Friday evenings than to talk about authorization technologies....)

> btw: implicit +1 to weekly call

Great.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:05:12 +0100

> Friday evenings than to talk about authorization technologies....)

You'd be suprised ;) but thanks for bearing this in mind...

>> btw: implicit +1 to weekly call

I wasn't expecting telecons from an IETF group, but yes, this sounds
useful. At least at this stage. I hope to participate somehow...

Dan