I like the last option :-) > On 2 Dec 2020, at 22:29, Brian Campbell > <bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > There were a few items discussed somewhat during the recent interim > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-oauth-16/session/oauth> > that I committed to bringing back to the list. The slide below (also > available with a few extra spelling errors as slide #19 from the interim > presentation > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-oauth-16/materials/slides-interim-2020-oauth-16-sessa-dpop-01.pdf>) > is the last of them. > > To summarize, I'm wondering if there's WG interest in working to formalize a > client-to-AS authentication mechanism based on DPoP. I think it potentially > would be problematic to put into the current document (for a number of > reasons) so am preemptively ruling out that option. Thus, basically, I'm > asking the WG if there is some/much interest in the idea? In which case I'll > find some time (at some point) to write up an I-D for it and bring that back > to the group for consideration. Or if I should, as the slide says, "shut up > and never speak of this again"? > > <Slide19.jpeg> > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged > material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, > distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by > e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. > Thank you._______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
-- ForgeRock values your Privacy <https://www.forgerock.com/your-privacy>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
