Instead of "SAML Assertion Flow" maybe we should stick with the more generic "Assertion Flow".
The assertion_format parameter allows you to define the assertion type. Maybe we can predefine some well know formats, for example: "saml1", "saml1.1" and "saml2"? Marius On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > I'm making good progress working off David's draft and bringing text from > WRAP into it, as well as from OAuth 1.0a, and my token auth proposal. So far > it is largely in line with David's proposal and the majority of changes are > purely editorial. > > The only significant change I have made (which is of course open to debate) > is renaming all the authorization flows parameters. I dropped the oauth_ > prefix (no real need since these are purely OAuth endpoints, not protected > resources), and made most of the parameter names shorter. I am not done so > they are not consistent yet. > > You can follow my progress (changes every few hours) at: > > http://github.com/theRazorBlade/draft-ietf-oauth/raw/master/draft-ietf-oauth > .txt > > Please feel free to comment on anything you like or dislike. I will publish > the whole thing as an I-D once it is feature complete for the WG to discuss > before we promote this to a WG draft. > > I hope to be done with the initial draft by middle of next week (I'll be > flying most of Fri-Sat so no progress over the weekend). > > EHL > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
