A generic assertion flow is too under-specified to be included. If a SAML2 assertion flow isn't enough or useful, we should define what is and fully specify it. The current text is still incomplete as it doesn't address how the assertion should be encoded in the request.
EHL On 4/1/10 11:21 AM, "Marius Scurtescu" <[email protected]> wrote: Instead of "SAML Assertion Flow" maybe we should stick with the more generic "Assertion Flow". The assertion_format parameter allows you to define the assertion type. Maybe we can predefine some well know formats, for example: "saml1", "saml1.1" and "saml2"? Marius On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm making good progress working off David's draft and bringing text from > WRAP into it, as well as from OAuth 1.0a, and my token auth proposal. So far > it is largely in line with David's proposal and the majority of changes are > purely editorial. > > The only significant change I have made (which is of course open to debate) > is renaming all the authorization flows parameters. I dropped the oauth_ > prefix (no real need since these are purely OAuth endpoints, not protected > resources), and made most of the parameter names shorter. I am not done so > they are not consistent yet. > > You can follow my progress (changes every few hours) at: > > http://github.com/theRazorBlade/draft-ietf-oauth/raw/master/draft-ietf-oauth > .txt > > Please feel free to comment on anything you like or dislike. I will publish > the whole thing as an I-D once it is feature complete for the WG to discuss > before we promote this to a WG draft. > > I hope to be done with the initial draft by middle of next week (I'll be > flying most of Fri-Sat so no progress over the weekend). > > EHL > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
