I am willing to try and help you with it. John B.
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi *, > On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Happy New Year! >> >> I thought it would be good to quickly summarize where we are with our >> work in OAuth as we start into 2015. >> >> Late last year we issued a few working group last calls. >> >> * SPOP >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-spop/ >> >> The WGLC was started already in the summer and led to a huge amount of >> feedback. This lead to an improved draft. >> >> Nat, John, Naveen: What is the status of the document? What are the open >> issues? >> >> At a minimum there is the issue with the name of the document since it >> actually does not propose a proof-of- >> possession solution. >> >> * Token Introspection >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-introspection/ >> >> Justin told me that he believes the document is ready for the IESG. I >> will do my shepherd write-up and shepherd review of the latest version >> before I hand it over to Kathleen. >> >> * Dynamic Client Registration >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-21 >> >> We had a fair amount of discussion about this document on the mailing >> list in response to my shepherd write-up. A new version of the document >> has been published and I will have to double-check whether the review >> comments have been incorporated. Then, the document will be ready for >> the IESG. >> >> * OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture/ >> >> We issued a WGLC and received comments, which had not yet been >> incorporated. The obvious next step is to publish a new version of the >> document with the comments addressed. There is also the new mailing list >> <unbearable> and we have to figure out how this aligns with the work we >> are doing. Info is here: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13997.html >> >> Derek will be the shepherd for that document. >> >> I also wanted to produce a short write-up in response to a news story >> late last year that blamed OAuth for getting things wrong while the real >> issue is rather with the way how responsibility are distributed among >> different players in the eco-system. Here is the link to the discussion >> and the news story: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13929.html >> >> We also have various documents in IESG processing, namely >> * JWT >> * Assertion Framework >> * SAML Bearer Assertion >> * JWT Bearer Assertion >> >> Kathleen asked us to do a final review of the documents to make sure >> that various review comments have been addressed appropriately. I am >> planning to have a look at it today. >> >> There is also a webinar upcoming, namely about Kantara UMA. This webinar >> will be a bit different than earlier presentations you have heard about >> UMA since it will be focused on Internet of Things. This is part of the >> webinar series we do in the IETF ACE working group. Here is a link to >> the announcement: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14015.html >> >> Related to the work in this group is the SASL OAuth draft, which is >> currently in WGLC in the KITTEN working group and you might want to do a >> quick review of the document: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-18 >> >> Here is the WGLC announcement from the KITTEN chairs: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14020.html >> >> There is also the "authentication in OAuth" topic that we wanted to >> progress. There is a write-up from Justin available, which will inform >> the debate, but there was also interest to do something more official in >> the working group. We discussed this at the last IETF meeting. >> >> Also at the last IETF meeting we briefly spoke about the token >> exchange/token delegation work and I got the impression that there is a >> bit of confusion about the scope of the work and what functionality >> should be covered in what document. >> >> The last two topics seem to be suitable for conference calls. So, we >> will try to arrange something to progress these topics. >> >> Finally, there is the open redirect Antonio raised in >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13367.html. The >> attack might be difficult to understand but it is still worthwhile >> to make an attempt to explain it to a wider audience (and also the >> mitigation technique). I believe a draft would be quite suitable for >> this purpose and I have spoken with Antonio about it already. >> > > thanks Hannes & Derek for including this here. > Even if I do not have any experience in IETF processes and related I was > wondering if there is any change I can take a stub at and try to prepare a > draft about this particular issue. > What do you guys think? Is there also anybody that would like to collaborate > with me on this matter? > > regards > > antonio > > >> These are the items that come to mind right now. A lot of work ahead of >> us, as it seems. >> >> What is missing from the list? Feedback? >> >> Ciao >> Hannes & Derek >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
