ned in the WS specifications, I
> don’t understand the confusion. If section 1.3 is confusing, I’m OK with
> dropping this
>
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 2:44 PM
> To: Phil Hunt
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject
don’t understand the confusion. If section 1.3 is confusing, I’m OK with
> dropping this
>
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 2:44 PM
> To: Phil Hunt
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oau
ction 1.3 is confusing, I'm OK with dropping this
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 2:44 PM
To: Phil Hunt
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
I pointed out a problem with the non norm
-- Mike
>>
>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:04 PM
>> To: Brian Campbell
>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange
>
>
>
> FYI, I do plan to refresh this draft too allow for a more flexible trust
> model shortly.
>
>
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org ] *On
> Behalf Of *Anthony Nadalin
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:04 PM
> *To:*
ike
>
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:04 PM
> To: Brian Campbell
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
>
> I’m lost, the terms defined in the oauth token-ex
.
-- Mike
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:04 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
I’m lost, the terms defined in the oauth token-exchange draft are the
: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
And I was suggesting that OAuth token exchange align with the WS-Trust
definitions or maybe even define totally new terms. But not use the same terms
to mean different things.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Anthony Nadalin
mailto:tony
*To:* Vladimir Dzhuvinov
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
>
>
>
> FWIW, I am very interested in the general concept of a lightweight or
> OAuth based token exchange mechanism. However, despite some distaste for
> the protocol
:44 AM
To: Vladimir Dzhuvinov
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
FWIW, I am very interested in the general concept of a lightweight or OAuth
based token exchange mechanism. However, despite some distaste for the
protocol, our existing WS-Trust
FWIW, I am very interested in the general concept of a lightweight or OAuth
based token exchange mechanism. However, despite some distaste for the
protocol, our existing WS-Trust functionality has proven to be "good
enough" for most use-cases, which seems to prevent work on token exchange
from gett
Has anyone implemented the OAuth 2.0 Token exchange draft, in particular
the on-behalf-of semantics? We've got a use case for that and I'm
curious if someone has used it in practice.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00
Thanks,
Vladimir
--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov
Connect2i
12 matches
Mail list logo
