I have started sharing my planned changes for 17:
https://github.com/hueniverse/draft-ietf-oauth
Change log:
https://github.com/hueniverse/draft-ietf-oauth/commit/24a48f99c204331264028
f66708427961a1bc102#diff-3
My main focus right now is to clarify client types, registration, and
identificat
Thanks Barry.
Could you please add me to the OAUTH WG Agenda for a presentation on UMA.
I will send you the slides before July 22nd.
Thanks again.
Regards.
/thomas/
From: barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com [barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com]
On Beha
Either way. It could stay in there, if you want to show a concrete
example of an extension grant type. Or it could be removed too -
draft-ietf-oauth-assertions and draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer will
have plenty of examples.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> What abo
As I go over recent feedback, anything that requires additional text will be
bounced back to the list for new proposed language. I need to receive it by
noon PT Thur, to be included in –17 (assuming no objections).
EHL
From: Barry Leiba mailto:barryle...@computer.org>>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:
This needs to be reworked to reflect reality. The state value must be shared
with the resource owner's browser and authorization server, so it is not really
a secret known only to the client…
EHL
From: Mark Mcgloin mailto:mark.mcgl...@ie.ibm.com>>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:28:33 -0700
To: Torste
It's a pointless MUST given how undefined the requirements are. It will only be
understood by security experts and they don't really need it. At a minimum, it
needs some examples.
EHL
From: Torsten Lodderstedt
mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:53:37 -0700
To: Eran Hamme
What about the example using SAML assertion?
From: Brian Campbell
mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:42:21 -0700
To: Eran Hammer-lahav mailto:e...@hueniverse.com>>
Cc: oauth mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1
su
I believe the new assertion draft covers it and this change can be
sidelined as long as the new draft has WG support to move forward.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> In light of the new assertion draft, do we still want to make this change?
> EHL
> From: Brian Campbell
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile
Author(s) : Michael B. Jones
Brian
In light of the new assertion draft, do we still want to make this change?
EHL
From: Brian Campbell
mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:25:12 -0700
To: oauth mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection on
asserti
> it is time to think about the agenda for the IETF#81 meeting in Quebec City.
Adding to this, in case folks haven't looked at the draft IETF agenda:
we're currently scheduled from 9 to 11:30 EDT (13:00 to 15:30 UTC) on
Wednesday morning, 27 July -- BUT THAT MIGHT CHANGE. There will, as
always, b
Section 3:
In addition, the authorization server MAY allow unauthenticated
access token requests when the client identity does not matter (e.g.
anonymous client) or when the client identity is established via
other means. For readability purposes only, this specification is
writte
Hi all,
it is time to think about the agenda for the IETF#81 meeting in Quebec City.
Since we are planning to complete the current working group documents our focus
will be on the working group items.
Please sent me a mail off-list whether you are able to present your document.
Here is a st
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> Need proposed text.
...
> Need proposed text.
...
> Need proposed text.
I will add to this that at this stage in the document development, any
requests for changes need to be accompanied by specific proposed text.
If you absolutely can'
> FYI This is a new draft on the UMA Core protocol, which builds on OAuth2.0.
>
> Hopefully we can present/discuss it at IETF81 in Quebec City.
The chairs will be happy to accept a presentation/discussion on this
as time permits. That means it will go at the end of the agenda, and
we will only ge
Important reminder to all draft editors:
The deadline for submissions of -00 version drafts is TODAY, 4 July,
at 17:00 PDT (23:59+ UTC).
The deadline for submissions of later version drafts is NEXT MONDAY,
11 July, at 17:00 PDT (23:59+ UTC).
Please don't miss the deadlines if you have drafts to
16 matches
Mail list logo
