Any statement I made at meeting the other day on this topic was less an actual proposal and more just a meta comment that there might be some confusion around the term "authorization details" because it is already used extensively in RAR to mean a RAR related thing. RFC9396 uses the term "authorization details" 64 times while the parameter, claim, and introspection response member name "authorization_details" appears 87 times.
Ironically, I'm sending this from the "[ID-align] Side Meeting at IETF120" which is about divergent use of similar or same terms. On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 2:33 PM George Fletcher <gffletch= 40aol....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi, > > At IETF 120, a proposal was made to both rename the `azd` claim (because > of it's overlap with azd as defined by RAR) as well as define a way to > explicitly include a RAR object. The issue can be found here: > > https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/118 > > The proposal is to rename `azd` to `tad` (Transaction Authorization > Details) but NOT define a specific mechanism for including a RAR object in > the `tad`. Are there any current (real world) use cases where an explicit > inclusion of a RAR object would be valuable? > > This or any other feedback greatly appreciated. Please provide feedback in > the issue on github. > > Thanks, > George > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org > -- _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 To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-le...@ietf.org
