Hi Daniel,
from the history of the group I think it is fair to say that we can
guarantee that there will be further work on this topic.
The reason why I agree with Nat is that neither DPoP nor MTLS paint the
bigger picture.
Ciao
Hannes
Am 03.04.2023 um 09:20 schrieb Daniel Fett:
Hi Nat,
after reading through the PoP architecture document again, my
impression is that this document had a lot of value before MTLS and
DPoP came along. But when thinking about what an updated version could
look like, and considering that it is unlikely for the moment that
many other PoP methods will be standardized soon, I wonder if it
wouldn't be a mostly theoretical discourse today.
-Daniel
Am 10.02.23 um 17:23 schrieb Nat Sakimura:
Hi
OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture[1] has not
progressed and expired since 2017.
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-08
I just noticed it because I wanted to refer to it in one of the
papers I am involved with. IMHO, it has got good information worth
making referencable. Has it been an explicit decision to abandon the
document, or is it just the result of the priority of the editors and
this WG shifted away? Is there an appetite to progress it?
Best,
--
Nat Sakimura
_______________________________________________
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
