Not that I know of beyond what we have as part of the openID Connect testing. A good number of those tests cover the underlying OAuth 2 flows.
It would not take too much to expand the FEDLAB test harness for more generic OAuth tests if there was a demand. Though without a protocol to apply OAuth to the tests are more of a challenge. John B. On 2012-08-23, at 10:49 PM, Eve Maler <e...@xmlgrrl.com> wrote: > Perhaps relatedly, in the UMA group we've been defining feature tests for > interoperability testing, and since UMA uses OAuth, we wondered if any OAuth > feature tests exist; we couldn't find any. That might be another activity > worthy of being taken up by such a community. (Both UMA and OpenID Connect > are using the OSIS.idcommons.net wiki for interop testing.) > > Eve > > On 23 Aug 2012, at 7:51 AM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > >> The openID foundation is in a position of promoting OAuth 2 now as a >> significant dependency of openID Connect and other work. >> >> I can ask the board if there is a interest in hosting something specific for >> OAuth 2. >> >> I agree with Justin, now that the core spec is done there needs to be some >> consideration put to marketing and support by someone. >> This WG has new work items to progress so we probably don't want to get >> bogged down with that in this group. >> >> I will wait to see the discussion on this here before asking OIDF or anyone >> else if they want to set something up. >> >> John B. >> On 2012-08-23, at 10:38 AM, Justin Richer wrote: >> >>> With the core specs basically out the door and seeing wider adoption and >>> publicity, the OAuth community is going to start to get more questions >>> about "how do I do X?", and many of these are questions that have been >>> answered before or seem "obvious" to those of us who have been up to our >>> ears in the spec for the past few years. Nevertheless, these are important >>> questions to support for the wellbeing of the protocol community, but where >>> should they be asked? >>> >>> When the OAuth community lived on a simple Google Group, these kinds of >>> questions make sense. But I'd argue that the IETF list is not really the >>> right place for them. This list, and the IETF in general, seems to be best >>> suited for *building* the protocol, not for the *use* and *support* of said >>> protocol once it's built. >>> >>> The problem is that, as of right now, we don't have anywhere to point >>> people where they could get a "real" answer. >>> >>> This opens a larger question of who might "sponsor" or "host" such a >>> community. Anything like that needs moderators, and more importantly, needs >>> experts willing to answer the questions. Some options I can think of: >>> >>> - Revive the google groups list for these kinds of questions/discussions >>> - Start a new list/forum, linked to oauth.net >>> - Point everyone to StackOverflow with an "oauth" tag >>> >>> >>> -- Justin (who is not volunteering himself to host or moderate the group) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog > +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
