No, that those of us who we're fallowing the instructions not to comment if our hum was recorded in the room, should not hold back given the nature of the thread has changed.
It was also an indication to the char that the original intent of the thread to judge consensus is impacted by some people who previously hummed piling on the thread. I am more than fine with discussion. It probably should have been a different thread though. John B. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 30, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 30/07/14 14:42, John Bradley wrote: >> This request for only those not at the F2F to add to the hum has gone a bit >> off the rails. > Meaning you see too much feedback, is it bad, even if some of it may be off > topic ? >> For those not in the room there was discussion that the draft needed a >> method to deal with: >> - Multiple AS >> - Supporting the PoP specs >> - stopping clients or other interceptors of the token from introspecting it. >> >> Justin stated that his implementation already had a number of those features. >> >> I offered to help get those into the spec as part of my support for making >> this a WG item. >> >> Yes if AS and RS are monolithic and there is only one software vendor, then >> this is not needed. > Why not ? What is wrong with standardizing an introspection process which > even RS & AS from the same vendor may want to use as opposed to every vendor > inventing its own protocol ? > > This is why I thought focusing on the RS to 3rd party only diverts from the > idea which I 'read' in the thread (may be I'm wrong), i.e, standardizing on > the RS-to-AS communication, which may not have been considered, > > Cheers, Sergey > >> >> On the other hand there is evidence that is not the case. >> >> John B. >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> I've understood from what Justin said the idea is to introduce a standard >>> way for RS to communicate to AS about the tokens issued by the AS. I think >>> it is a good idea, I'd only not focus on the RS-to-3rd party AS >>> communications because it complicates it a bit. >>> >>> Clearly it would be of help to implementers of OAuth2 filters protecting >>> RS, having a new lengthy process to collect the cases seems to be a very >>> administrative idea to me >>> >>> Thanks, Sergey >>> >>>> On 30/07/14 03:54, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>> -100 >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> On Jul 29, 2014, at 17:52, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu >>>> <mailto:jric...@mit.edu>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Reading through this thread, it appears very clear to me that the use >>>>> cases are very well established by a number of existing implementers >>>>> who want to work together to build a common standard. I see no reason >>>>> to delay the work artificially by creating a use case document when >>>>> such a vast array of understanding and interest already exists. Any >>>>> use cases and explanations of applications are welcome to be added to >>>>> the working group draft as it progresses. >>>>> >>>>> -- Justin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/29/2014 8:16 PM, Mike Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you consider standardizing the access token format within that >>>>>> deployment so all the parties that needed to could understand it, >>>>>> rather requiring an extra round trip to an introspection endpoint so >>>>>> as to be able to understand things about it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I realize that might or might not be practical in some cases, but I >>>>>> haven’t heard that alternative discussed, so I thought I’d bring it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also second Phil’s comment that it would be good to understand the >>>>>> use cases that this is intended to solve before embarking on a >>>>>> particular solution path. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:*OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *George >>>>>> Fletcher >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:25 PM >>>>>> *To:* Phil Hunt; Thomas Broyer >>>>>> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth >>>>>> Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item >>>>>> >>>>>> We also have a use case where the AS is provided by a partner and the >>>>>> RS is provided by AOL. Being able to have a standardized way of >>>>>> validating and getting data about the token from the AS would make >>>>>> our implementation much simpler as we can use the same mechanism for >>>>>> all Authorization Servers and not have to implement one off solutions >>>>>> for each AS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> George >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/28/14, 8:11 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Could we have some discussion on the interop cases? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it driven by scenarios where AS and resource are separate >>>>>> domains? Or may this be only of interest to specific protocols >>>>>> like UMA? >>>>>> >>>>>> From a technique principle, the draft is important and sound. I >>>>>> am just not there yet on the reasons for an interoperable standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:t.bro...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're >>>>>> building for http://www.oasis-eu.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig >>>>>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net >>>>>> <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong >>>>>> consensus in >>>>>> adopting the "OAuth Token Introspection" >>>>>> (draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06.txt) specification as an >>>>>> OAuth WG >>>>>> work item. >>>>>> >>>>>> We would now like to verify the outcome of this call for >>>>>> adoption on the >>>>>> OAuth WG mailing list. Here is the link to the document: >>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection/ >>>>>> >>>>>> If you did not hum at the IETF 90 OAuth WG meeting, and have >>>>>> an opinion >>>>>> as to the suitability of adopting this document as a WG work >>>>>> item, >>>>>> please send mail to the OAuth WG list indicating your opinion >>>>>> (Yes/No). >>>>>> >>>>>> The confirmation call for adoption will last until August 10, >>>>>> 2014. If >>>>>> you have issues/edits/comments on the document, please send these >>>>>> comments along to the list in your response to this Call for >>>>>> Adoption. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ciao >>>>>> Hannes & Derek >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Broyer >>>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto: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
