<hat type='AD'/> Agreed.
I'll poke the chairs about accepting this as a WG item. :) Peter On 12/14/10 6:26 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > Prepare a new draft if needed and submit it with draft-ietf-oauth- > prefix. One of the chairs will need to approve it and it will be > published. I think we have wide consensus for this and this was > already proposed a long time ago with no objections. > > EHL > >> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Campbell >> [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, >> 2010 10:18 AM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav Cc: Torsten Lodderstedt; oauth >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for >> draft-campbell- oauth-saml-01 >> >> I don't have any objection to it and think it's probably cleaner. >> >> Previously I'd informally asked that the SAML profile be considered >> a WG item and I don't think there was any objection. What needs to >> be done to make that happen? >> >> If you/we take this approach, what else will you need from me? >> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav >> <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: >>> Torsten made a good argument that now that we combined assertions >>> and >> extensions into a single mechanism, it does not make sense to make >> the 'assertion' parameter required, and that some extensions will >> be confusing with such a parameter name. In addition, the recent >> document split demoted this specification from 'core' to >> 'framework' which is more friendly to extensions and companion >> specifications. >>> >>> I would suggest we drop the assertion parameter from the spec, >>> but add a >> directly reference to the SAML assertion specification and give an >> example showing the parameter. This will remove the normative >> language (which really doesn't belong there - something I've long >> maintained), but will keep the SAML assertion option on equal >> ground (directly demonstrated in the spec). After all, you can't >> implement assertions just by reading the framework spec, you still >> need the SAML work. >>> >>> This will require moving the SAML into a WG item (not a must but >>> best) >> which I am supportive of and would like to see happen quickly (in a >> few days). >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> EHL >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Campbell >>>> [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, >>>> 2010 8:11 AM To: Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; >>>> oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification >>>> for draft-campbell- oauth-saml-01 >>>> >>>> Future revisions of this SAML draft will build off whatever >>>> assertion/extension mechanism is provided by the core framework >>>> spec. However, some compelling reasons were previously given >>>> for keeping the 'assertion' (one thread on the topic: >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg04401.html) >>>> >>>> parameter in core. Has the thinking on that changed? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt >>>> <tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 14.12.2010 um 04:19 schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav >>>> <e...@hueniverse.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> I think the 'assertion' parameter should be moved into this >>>>>> draft and >>>> defined there. This will also facilitate its proper definition >>>> and status (required, singular, etc.). >>>>>> >>>>>> EHL >>>>>> >>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
