On 6/28/23 1:22 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
In the old days, someone would have written a draft "oauth considered
harmful" and we would discuss that...
My main problem is how the IESG failed so badly to not catch this. I
mean, how can the advice "bad guys should be good" get through review of
a BCP? So this is really a process problem, not a considered harmful
problem. I'm having a hard time coming with an alternative word
describing how bad this is.
OAUTH probably does deserve a considered harmful draft, but at this
point it is just pissing in the wind because nobody will misusing it
will listen. I have been writing a blog post off and on about this and
me hitting the publish button would have about the same effect.
Mike
-- Christian Huitema
On 6/28/2023 12:59 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
Ideas have feelings too.
On 6/28/23 12:15, Chris Box wrote:
Everyone,
The current moderators team considers that this thread has seen
multiple
instances of uncivil commentary, specifically the criticizing of an
idea in
a way that is insulting or excessively hostile. This is a definition
that
we inherited from the previous team, and is defined at
https://github.com/ietf/Moderators/blob/main/unprofessional-commentary.md.
We ask people to consider how to reframe any language that might be
perceived as crossing this line, before posting to this list.
Criticizing
ideas is essential in the IETF, but this can be done without requiring
hostility. If you have any suggestions for amendments to the
definition,
please either email moderators@xxxxxxxx, or create a pull request
for the
above.
Thank you,
Chris and Mohit
