Hi Hannes, just for clarification: as far as I remember the proposal in Seoul was to turn the document into a BCP.
Is this consistent with your expectation? kind regards, Torsten. > Am 20.02.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>: > > Hi all, > > earlier this month we issued a call for adoption of the OAuth security > topics draft, see draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security-topics-00, and the > response was quite positive on the list (as well as during the last f2f > meeting). > > For this reason, we ask the authors to submit a WG version of the > document and to discuss new content for the document in preparation for > the next meeting. > > Note that the intention of the document is to discuss security topics as > they relate to the work in the OAuth working group. As this initial > document already does, it describes a problem statement and outlines > various ways to mitigate the problems. I expect the working group to > decide which solution approach is most appropriate and to detail it (at > a specification level) in a separate document (some of those documents > already exist in the working group). This should help us make decisions > that are not just point solutions for specific problems but rather > consider the big picture. > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > _______________________________________________ > 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
