Re: [OAUTH-WG] scp claim in draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-12

I’m OK with this change, given it makes the OAuth suite of specs more self-consistent. -- Mike From: OAuth On Behalf Of Brian Campbell Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 8:17 AM To: Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] scp c

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Followup on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-12.txt

Eric, I realize you weren't particularly impressed by my prior statements about the actor claim but, for lack of knowing what else to say, I'm going to kind of repeat what I said about it over in the Phabricator tool and add a little col

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for agenda items

I think it would be useful if we had a draft and we wanted to accelerate next steps, which may have been what would have happened in the last interm meeting. But it was not, it was clear there was not consensus on the problem, so I'm hoping Nat, Brian and myself can get consensus, and then bring th

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for agenda items

Rifaat and I are also OK with not having to organize a conference call on that topic if you and the group think that no such meeting is necessary. From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.ha...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 April 2018 16:29 To: Hannes Tschofenig Cc: n-sakimura; oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization

I support adoption of OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization as a WG document. -- Annabelle Richard Backman Amazon – Identity Services From: OAuth on behalf of Brian Campbell Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:23 AM To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Cc: oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: O

Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC on draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-07

Thanks for the text, Neil. And the nit on the text, Ben. I'll include it in the next draft. Ben, bit of a procedural question for you: can or should I include those references (https://www.cryptologie.net/article/374/common-x509-certificate- validationcreation-pitfalls/ & http://www.cs.utexas.edu/

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization

I support adoption of OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization as a WG document. On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: > All, > > We would like to get a confirmation on the mailing list for the adoption of > the *OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization* as a WG document > https://dat

Re: [OAUTH-WG] scp claim in draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-12

The draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange document makes use of scope and at some point in that work it came to light that, despite the concept of scope being used lots of places elsewhere, there was no officially registered JWT claim for scope. As a result, we (the WG) decided to have draft-ietf-oauth-t

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for agenda items

The last interm meeting was not very productive. The value I got was that it would be useful to see if Nat, Brian and I could coalesce. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:21 AM Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Dick, > > > > The value of a conference call as part of the OAuth working group is that > you invo

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for agenda items

Hi Dick, The value of a conference call as part of the OAuth working group is that you involve other interested parties to the discussion, and that you do not have to repeat your private conversations later again on the mailing list. That’s pretty convincing to me ;-) Ciao Hannes From: Dick H

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for agenda items

F2F side/author meeting at Montreal Ad hock author meeting call prior Unclear to me the value of a WG intern meeting On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:59 AM Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hey guys, > > > > I am trying to find out what you are planning here. > > > > Are you talking about scheduling a side m

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for agenda items

Hey guys, I am trying to find out what you are planning here. Are you talking about scheduling a side meeting at the next IETF meeting or a f2f meeting somewhere else? Rifaat and I had promised to schedule a conference call (virtual interim meeting) about distributed OAuth and we are targeting