> Am 24.07.2018 um 22:51 schrieb Dick Hardt :
>
> Ok. I think I understand the use case now. Would you confirm?
>
> These are deployed today, correct?
We are building up the scheme. One banking group is deployed.
>
> Today, a separate flow us required for each RS, correct?
We support
Ok. I think I understand the use case now. Would you confirm?
These are deployed today, correct?
Today, a separate flow us required for each RS, correct?
In the future, you would like the client to ask for multiple resources that
are managed by the same AS, correct?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at
For every bank (and their customers) there is a set of services run by the bank
or other entities, which rely on the AS of the particular bank for
authorization. In some cases, a service may bring its own AS to the party (due
to technical restrictionions). So an RP binding to a certain
I'm trying to understand the use case.
It still is vague. Are you saying that each of these is run by a different
entity, but all trust the bank as the authorization server to manage if the
user has granted permission to use the resource rather than managing it
themselves?
account information,
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
> And who is the AS?
In case of yes, it’s typically the bank. At Deutsche Telekom, it is the central
AS/IDP.
Why are you asking?
>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 23.07.2018 um 13:58 schrieb Dick Hardt :
>>>
>>> In your examples, are these
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
