Obviously, it is not so clear from the language there.

Chuck Mortimore <[email protected]> 写于 2012-12-04 10:17:12:

> There's no reason why it can't be resource owner today. 
> 
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, <[email protected]> 
<[email protected]
> > wrote:
> 
> 
> +1. 
> And why it was not looked at that time? 
> 
> [email protected] 写于 2012-12-04 01:30:55:
> 
> > Actually, I think it is a good time to start looking at the resourse
> > owner issuing assertions@ (Interestingly enough, Hui-Lan had brought
> > this up a couple of years ago.)
> > 
> > Igor
> > 
> > On 12/3/2012 3:58 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote: 
> > I suppose, yes. I was reading it like that all the time. 
> > Whether it is or not, if it is still ok, it might be better to clarify 
it. 
> > Word like "third party" tends to be a bit of problem without 
> clearlydefining. 
> > I had similar experience in other fora. 
> > 
> > Nat 
> > 
> > Sent from iPad 
> > 
> > 2012/12/03 0:52、"[email protected]" <[email protected]> の
> > メッセ�`ジ:
> 
> > 
> > could be Resource owner? 
> > 
> 
> > 
> > "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email protected]> 
> > 发件人:  [email protected] 
> > 2012-12-03 16:49 
> > 
> > 收件人 
> > 
> > "ext Nat Sakimura" <[email protected]>, "Brian Campbell" <
> > [email protected]>, "oauth" <[email protected]> 
> > 
> > 抄送 
> > 
> > 主题 
> > 
> > Re: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be 
> > either the client or a third party token service? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Nat, 
> > 
> > The current text essentially says that the assertion can either be 
> > created by the client (in which case it is self-signed) or it can be
> > created by some other entity (which is then called the third party 
> > token service). So, this third party could be the authorization 
server. 
> > 
> > Ciao
> > Hannes 
> > 
> > 
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of 
> > ext Nat Sakimura
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:35 AM
> > To: Brian Campbell; oauth
> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be
> > either the client or a third party token service? 
> > 
> > Hi Brian, 
> > 
> > 
> > The assertion framework defines the Issuer as: 
> > 
> >    Issuer  The unique identifier for the entity that issued the 
> >       assertion.  Generally this is the entity that holds the key 
> >       material used to generate the assertion.  The issuer may be 
either 
> >       an OAuth client (when assertions are self-issued) or a third 
party 
> >       token service. 
> > 
> > I was wondering why it has to be either the client or a third party 
> > token service. 
> > Conceptually, it could be any token service (functionality) 
> residingin any of 
> > 
> > the stakeholders (Resource Owner, OAuth Client, Authorization Server, 
or 
> > a third party). 
> > 
> > 
> > I would appreciate if you could clarify why is the case. 
> > 
> > 
> > Best, 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Nat Sakimura (=nat) 
> > Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> > http://nat.sakimura.org/
> > @_nat_en 
> >  _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to