I'd be okay with that as a way forward. Frankly, of course, I'd prefer to
see draft-campbell-oauth-sts as the starting point with Mike and the other
draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange authors added as co-authors. Regardless,
there are elements from both that likely need to end up in the final work
Hi Brian,
we should definitely take your work into account and I recall some other
drafts on the same subject being published some time ago as well.
Adding more co-authors to this working group item makes a lot of sense
to me.
Ciao
Hannes
On 08/11/2014 04:42 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
I'd be
I read the draft and just don’t get it, it overloads some of the basic
semantics, I’m not quite sure you get the concept of token exchange, has what
you described been deployed ? or even built ?
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
Sent: Monday, August 11,
Yes (sorry I'm a little late with this one)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi all,
during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in
adopting the Request by JWS ver.1.0 for OAuth 2.0
Yes
2014-07-29 2:33 GMT+09:00 Hannes Tschofenig hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net:
Hi all,
during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in
adopting the Request by JWS ver.1.0 for OAuth 2.0
(draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl-05.txt) specification as an OAuth WG work
item.
We would
Yes for me as well
On 7/28/14, 1:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,
during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in
adopting the Request by JWS ver.1.0 for OAuth 2.0
(draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl-05.txt) specification as an OAuth WG work
item.
We would now like to
