Hannes, Derek, Would it possible to postpone presentation/discussion of the Dyn-Reg draft (Dynamic Client Registration Protocol) to the Atlanta/November IETF meeting?
The reason is that none of the proposers will be attending the Vancouver IETF in-person. Thanks. /thomas/ __________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:58 PM > To: John Bradley > Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF meeting > requested > > Hi all, > > I have uploaded an agenda for the meeting. > > I am assuming that all these items do not require discussion time > anymore: > * draft-ietf-oauth-assertions > * draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer > * draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns > * draft-ietf-oauth-v2 > * draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer > > Hence, we can focus on the new items. As discussed in the mail below I > put a separate slot for discussion of the holder-of-the-key/MAC token > security discussion on the agenda. I would suggest that a couple of us > meeting during the IETF week to work together on a presentation that > provides some concrete suggestions for next steps to the rest of the > group. > > I also put the following persons on the spot for the presentations of > working group items: > > - OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol (Thomas) > - JSON Web Token (JWT) (Mike) > - JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for OAuth 2.0 (Mike) > - Token Revocation (Torsten) > - SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Profiles for OAuth 2.0 (Brian) > - OAuth Use Cases (Zachary) > > Let me know if you want someone else to give the presentation. > > As a preparation for the meeting it would be good if you could > (a) identify the open issues with your document, and > (b) find one or two reviewers to have a look at your document during > the next two weeks. > > Ciao > Hannes > > On Jul 15, 2012, at 5:59 PM, John Bradley wrote: > > > Yes we need to get clearer on the the threats and use cases. > > > > I think Phil Hunt has some though there is likely overlap. > > > > Part of the problem with MAC was people never agreed on the threats > it was mitigating. > > > > I can present something or coordinate with Tony or Phil. > > > > John B. > > > > On 2012-07-14, at 9:36 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: > > > >> How about a few min on proof-of-possession requirements? I can > present our use cases and requirements > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Jones > >> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:42 PM > >> To: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF meeting > requested > >> > >> I'm willing to do 5 minutes on the status of the Core and Bearer > documents. > >> > >> I'm willing to give an update on JWT and the JWT Bearer - probably > 15 minutes. It's probably good that we're a day after the JOSE WG > meeting, given the JWT dependency upon the JOSE specs. > >> > >> I'm willing to be part of a discussion on the Assertions draft, but > would appreciate doing this with Brian and/or Chuck - I'm guessing 15 > minutes for that as well. (I'm not certain this will be needed, but > I'd like to review the recent changes before saying that it's not.) > >> > >> Looking forward to seeing many of you in Vancouver! > >> > >> -- Mike > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 12:46 AM > >> To: oauth@ietf.org WG > >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF meeting > requested > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I have requested a 2,5 hour slot for the upcoming meeting. > >> > >> While the next meeting is still a bit away it is nevertheless useful > to hear > >> * whether you plan to attend the next meeting, and > >> * whether you want to present something. > >> > >> I could imagine that these documents will be discussed: > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-revocation > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-use-cases > >> > >> To the draft authors of these docuemnts: Please think about the open > issues and drop a mail to the list so that we make some progress > already before the face-to-face meeting. > >> > >> I am assume that the following documents do not require any > discussion time at the upcoming IETF meeting anymore: > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-assertions > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-v2 > >> * draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer > >> > >> Ciao > >> Hannes > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
