On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 12:44:39PM +0000, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Göran, > > I believe there are new data points on this topic since the time the > requirements & use case draft was published. A lot of use cases were written > down and not all of them are still being considered by the folks in the > working group. Time has passed and we haven’t seen the same amount of > interest in the Client Token even among the authors as with the other > functionality. Furthermore, we have also received a review from Mike where he > restated what I said earlier about the Client Token. Then, there was the > recent IPR disclosure. > > If you believe we need to cover the Client Token functionality because you > need it then you that’s Ok. But so far I don’t think I hear you say that.
Right, this seems to be the key point. If there's not any running code and not going to be any, it's pretty likely that the spec (for this portion) will not actually be usable. -Ben (no hats) _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
