I'd note that the reaction at the conference to Ian's statement was overwhelmingly positive. There was a wide range of industry people here - implementers, practitioners, deployers, strategists, etc. - and it seems pretty clear that the "rough consensus" of the industry at large is that a4c is not wanted or needed.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > And here is a quote from Ian's blog. > > And although the authentication wheel is round, that doesn’t mean it isn’t >> without its lumps. First, we do see some reinventing the wheel just to >> reinvent the wheel. OAuth A4C is simply not a fruitful activity and should >> be put down. > > > >> (Source) >> http://www.tuesdaynight.org/2014/07/23/do-we-have-a-round-wheel-yet-musings-on-identity-standards-part-1.html > > > > 2014-07-23 16:53 GMT-04:00 John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com>: > > I thought I did post this to the list. >> >> I guess I hit the wrong reply on my phone. >> >> John B. >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:50 PM, tors...@lodderstedt.net wrote: >> >> we are two, at least :-) >> >> Why didn't you post this on the list? >> >> When will be be arriving? >> >> Am 23.07.2014 16:39, schrieb John Bradley: >> >> Ian Glazer mentioned this in his keynote at CIS yesterday. >> >> His advice was please stop, we are creating confusion and uncertainty. >> >> We are becoming our own wort enemy. ( my view though Ian may share it) >> >> Returning just an id_ token from the token endpoint has little real >> value. >> >> Something really useful to do would be sorting out channel_id so we can >> do PoP for id tokens to make them and other cookies secure in the front >> channel. I think that is a better use of time. >> >> I may be in the minority opinion on that, it won't be the first time. >> >> >> John B. >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net> >> wrote: >> >> You are right from a theoretical perspective. Practically this was >> caused by editorial decisions during the creation of the RFC. As far as I >> remember, there was a definition of the (one) token endpoint response in >> early versions. No one every considered to NOT respond with an access token >> from the token endpoint. So one might call it an implicit assumption. >> >> I'm worried that people get totally confused if an exception is >> introduced now given the broad adoption of OAuth based on this assumption. >> >> regards, >> Torsten. >> >> Am 23.07.2014 um 15:41 schrieb Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com>: >> >> Is it said anywhere that ALL grant types MUST use Section 5.1 >> responses? Each grant type references Section 5.1, and "access token >> request" is only defined in the context of the defined grant types. Section >> 2.2 doesn't talk about the request or response format. >> Le 23 juil. 2014 21:32, "Nat Sakimura" <sakim...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> Is it? Apart from the implicit grant that does not use token endpoint, >>> all other grant references section 5.1 for the response, i.e., all shares >>> the same response. >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-23 15:18 GMT-04:00 Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> I hadn't realized the JSON response that requires the access_token >>>> field is defined per grant_type, so I'd be OK to "extend the semantics" as >>>> in the current draft. >>>> That was actually my main concern: that the token endpoint mandates >>>> access_token; but its actually not the case. >>>> Le 23 juil. 2014 20:46, "Nat Sakimura" <sakim...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>> I agree with John that overloading response_type @ authz endpoint is >>>>> a bad idea. It completely changes the semantics of this parameter. NOTE: >>>>> what I was proposing was not this parameter, but a new parameter >>>>> response_type @ token endpoint. >>>>> >>>>> I also think overloading grant_type is a bad idea since it changes its >>>>> semantics. I quote the definition here again: >>>>> >>>>> grant >>>>> credential representing the resource owner's authorization >>>>> >>>>> grant_type >>>>> type of grant sent to the token endpoint to obtain the access token >>>>> >>>>> It is not about controlling what is to be returned from the token >>>>> endpoint, but the hint to the token endpoint describing the type of >>>>> credential the endpoint has received. It seems the "control of what is >>>>> being returned from token endpoint" is just a side effect. >>>>> >>>>> I am somewhat ambivalent[1] in changing the semantics of token >>>>> endpoint, but in as much as "text is the king" for a spec., we probably >>>>> should not change the semantics of it as Torsten points out. If it is ok >>>>> to >>>>> change this semantics, I believe defining a new parameter to this endpoint >>>>> to control the response would be the best way to go. This is what I have >>>>> described previously. >>>>> >>>>> Defining a new endpoint to send code to get ID Token and forbidding >>>>> the use of it against token endpoint would not change the semantics of any >>>>> existing parameter or endpoint, which is good. However, I doubt if it is >>>>> not worth doing. What's the point of avoiding access token scoped to >>>>> UserInfo endpoint after all? Defining a new endpoint for just avoiding the >>>>> access token for userinfo endpoint seems way too much the heavy wait way >>>>> and it breaks interoperabiliy: it defeats the purpose of standardization. >>>>> >>>>> I have started feeling that no change is the best way out. >>>>> >>>>> Nat >>>>> >>>>> [1] If instead of saying "Token endpoint - used by the client to >>>>> exchange an authorization grant for an access token, typically with >>>>> client authentication", it were saying "Token endpoint - used by the >>>>> client to exchange an authorization grant for tokens, typically with >>>>> client authentication", then it would have been OK. It is an expansion of >>>>> the capability rather than changing the semantics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-07-23 13:39 GMT-04:00 Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> You need the alternative response_type value ("code_for_id_token" >>>>>> in the A4C draft) to tell the Authorization Server to return a code to be >>>>>> used with the new grant type, rather than one to use with the >>>>>> "authorization_code" grant type (which is what response_type=code does). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *John >>>>>> Bradley >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:33 AM >>>>>> *To:* tors...@lodderstedt.net >>>>>> >>>>>> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for >>>>>> draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we use the token endpoint then a new grant_type is the best way. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It sort of overloads code, but that is better than messing with >>>>>> response_type for the authorization endpoint to change the response from >>>>>> the token_endpoint. That is in my opinion a champion bad idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In discussions developing Connect we decided not to open this can of >>>>>> worms because no good would come of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The token_endpoint returns a access token. Nothing requires scope to >>>>>> be associates with the token. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is the best solution. No change required. Better >>>>>> interoperability in my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Still on my way to TO, getting in later today. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John B. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:15 PM, tors...@lodderstedt.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The "response type" of the token endpoint is controlled by the >>>>>> value of the parameter "grant_type". So there is no need to introduce a >>>>>> new >>>>>> parameter. >>>>>> >>>>>> wrt to a potential "no_access_token" grant type. I do not consider >>>>>> this a good idea as it changes the semantics of the token endpoint (as >>>>>> already pointed out by Thomas). This endpoint ALWAYS responds with an >>>>>> access token to any grant type. I therefore would prefer to use another >>>>>> endpoint for the intended purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> Torsten. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 23.07.2014 13:04, schrieb Nat Sakimura: >>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, changing the semantics of "response_type" @ authz endpoint >>>>>> this way is not a good thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead, defining a new parameter "response_type" @ token endpoint, >>>>>> as I described in my previous message, >>>>>> >>>>>> probably is better. At least, it does not change the semantics of the >>>>>> parameters of RFC6749. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nat >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-07-23 12:48 GMT-04:00 Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I mean response_type=none and response_type=id_token don't >>>>>> generate a code or access token so you don't use the Token Endpoint >>>>>> (which >>>>>> is not the same as the Authentication Endpoint BTW). >>>>>> >>>>>> With response_type=code_for_id_token, you get a code and exchange it >>>>>> for an id_token only, rather than an access_token, so you're changing the >>>>>> semantics of the Token Endpoint. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that you can't really compare >>>>>> none and id_token with code_for_id_token. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It's only "not using the token endpoint" because the token endpoint >>>>>> copy-pasted and renamed the authentication endpoint. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Justin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that these are about not using the Token Endpoint at all, >>>>>> whereas the current proposal is about the Token Endpoint not returning an >>>>>> access_token field in the JSON. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Mike Jones < >>>>>> michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The response_type "none" is already used in practice, which returns >>>>>> no access token. It was accepted by the designated experts and >>>>>> registered >>>>>> in the IANA OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Types registry at >>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xml#endpoint. >>>>>> The registered "id_token" response type also returns no access token. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think the question of whether response types that result in no >>>>>> access token being returned are acceptable within OAuth 2.0 is already >>>>>> settled, as a practical matter. Lots of OAuth implementations are >>>>>> already >>>>>> using such response types. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil >>>>>> Hunt >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:09 AM >>>>>> *To:* Nat Sakimura >>>>>> *Cc:* <oauth@ietf.org> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for >>>>>> draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. This is why it has to be discussed in the IETF. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @independentid >>>>>> >>>>>> www.independentid.com >>>>>> >>>>>> phil.h...@oracle.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reading back the RFC6749, I am not sure if there is a good way of >>>>>> suppressing access token from the response and still be OAuth. It will >>>>>> break whole bunch of implicit definitions like: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> authorization server >>>>>> The server issuing access tokens to the client after >>>>>> successfully >>>>>> authenticating the resource owner and obtaining authorization. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, OAuth is all about issuing access tokens. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I take back my statement on the grant type in my previous mail. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The definition of grant and grant_type are respectively: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> grant >>>>>> >>>>>> credential representing the resource owner's authorization >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> grant_type >>>>>> >>>>>> (string representing the) type of grant sent to the token >>>>>> endpoint to obtain the access token >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus, the grant sent to the token endpoint in this case is still >>>>>> 'code'. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Response type on the other hand is not so well defined in RFC6749, >>>>>> but it seems it is representing what is to be returned from the >>>>>> authorization endpoint. To express what is to be returned from token >>>>>> endpoint, perhaps defining a new parameter to the token endpoint, which >>>>>> is >>>>>> a parallel to the response_type to the Authorization Endpoint seems to >>>>>> be a >>>>>> more symmetric way, though I am not sure at all if that is going to be >>>>>> OAuth any more. One straw-man is to define a new parameter called >>>>>> response_type to the token endpoint such as: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> response_type >>>>>> >>>>>> OPTIONAL. A string representing what is to be returned from the >>>>>> token endpoint. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then define the behavior of the endpoint according to the values as >>>>>> the parallel to the multi-response type spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nat >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-07-23 7:21 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> The draft is very clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 0:46, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The new grant type that I was talking about was >>>>>> >>>>>> "authorization_code_but_do_not_return_access_nor_refresh_token", so >>>>>> to speak. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does not return anything per se, but an extension can define >>>>>> something on top of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, OIDC can define a binding to it so that the binding only >>>>>> returns ID Token. >>>>>> >>>>>> This binding work should be done in OIDF. Should there be such a >>>>>> grant type, >>>>>> >>>>>> it will be an extremely short spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At the same time, if any other specification wanted to define >>>>>> >>>>>> other type of tokens and have it returned from the token endpoint, >>>>>> >>>>>> it can also use this grant type. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If what you want is to define a new grant type that returns ID Token >>>>>> only, >>>>>> >>>>>> then, I am with Justin. Since "other response than ID Token" is only >>>>>> >>>>>> theoretical, this is a more plausible way forward, I suppose. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nat >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-07-22 14:30 GMT-04:00 Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu>: >>>>>> >>>>>> So the draft would literally turn into: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The a4c response type and grant type return an id_token from the >>>>>> token endpoint with no access token. All parameters and values are >>>>>> defined >>>>>> in OIDC." >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems like the perfect mini extension draft for OIDF to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Justin >>>>>> >>>>>> /sent from my phone/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 22, 2014 10:29 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > What about just defining a new grant type in this WG? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2014-07-22 12:56 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> That would be nice. However oidc still needs the new grant type in >>>>>> order to implement the same flow. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Phil >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:35, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> +1 to Justin. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> 2014-07-22 9:54 GMT-04:00 Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org>: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Errors like these make it clear to me that it would make much >>>>>> more sense to develop this document in the OpenID Foundation. It should >>>>>> be >>>>>> something that directly references OpenID Connect Core for all of these >>>>>> terms instead of redefining them. It's doing authentication, which is >>>>>> fundamentally what OpenID Connect does on top of OAuth, and I don't see a >>>>>> good argument for doing this work in this working group. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- Justin >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mike Jones < >>>>>> michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your review, Thomas. The "prompt=consent" >>>>>> definition being missing is an editorial error. It should be: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> consent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Authorization Server SHOULD prompt the End-User for >>>>>> consent before returning information to the Client. If it cannot obtain >>>>>> consent, it MUST return an error, typically consent_required. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll plan to add it in the next draft. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It looks like the consent_required error needs to be defined >>>>>> too, and you might have forgotten to also import >>>>>> account_selection_required >>>>>> from OpenID Connect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree that there's no difference between a response with >>>>>> multiple "amr" values that includes "mfa" and one that doesn't. Unless a >>>>>> clear use case for why "mfa" is needed can be identified, we can delete >>>>>> it >>>>>> in the next draft. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> How about "pwd" then? I fully understand that I should return >>>>>> "pwd" if the user authenticated using a password, but what "the service >>>>>> if >>>>>> a client secret is used" means in the definition for the "pwd" value? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (Nota: I know you're at IETF-90, I'm ready to wait 'til you >>>>>> come back ;-) ) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> Thomas Broyer >>>>>> >>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>> >>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>>>> >>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>>>>> >>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>>>>> >>> @_nat_en >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>>>> > Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>>>>> > http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>>>>> > @_nat_en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>>>> >>>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>>>>> @_nat_en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>>>> >>>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>>>>> @_nat_en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Broyer >>>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Broyer >>>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>>>> >>>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>>>>> @_nat_en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>>>> @_nat_en >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>> @_nat_en >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
