I agree with William that it's a little confusing. I get that there's a
desire to discourage using plain but perhaps the language (especially the
MUST NOT in 7.2) should be lightened up just a bit?
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:22 PM, William Denniss wdenn...@google.com wrote:
Following up the
I have made some edits to make it consistent. They are checked into the
butbucket repo nat and I use, but we can’t update the official draft during the
freeze before the IETF meeting.
https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-spop
On Jul 9, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Brian Campbell bcampb...@pingidentity.com
I'd like to see us cover the following topics during our meeting in Prague...
Issues and Choices for Token Exchange, Brian Campbell and Mike Jones, 30 minutes
Next steps to complete the POP documents, 30 minutes?:
draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution, John Bradley?, 15
minutes?
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7591
Title: OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration
Protocol
Author: J. Richer, Ed.,
M. Jones,
J. Bradley,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7592
Title: OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration
Management Protocol
Author: J. Richer, Ed.,
M. Jones,
J. Bradley,
The OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol specification is now RFC
7591http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7591. I wrote more about this at
http://self-issued.info/?p=1414 and as
@selfissuedhttps://twitter.com/selfissued.
I’d like to add one short agenda item (5 min), to discuss the way forward:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakimura-oauth-rjwtprof/
Thanks,
Kind Regards
Kepeng
发件人: Mike Jones michael.jo...@microsoft.com
日期: Friday, 10 July, 2015 5:09 am
至: oauth@ietf.org oauth@ietf.org
主题: [OAUTH-WG]
