Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth + Open ID Connect Meeting: Sunday, March 2

[Lucy Lynch]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, John Bradley wrote:

I asked for the room from 12 to 5.  The chair had the time changed so we 
reserved the room from 10 to 3pm.


We would need to talk to Lucy to see if we could have the time extended 
past 3 for additional OAuth related meetings.


I don't know if the room is booked for something else after 3 but we 
could likely find out.


I can check - it would help if everyone agreed on times and topics.


John B.

On Feb 26, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Anthony Nadalin  wrote:


Agree, the OAUTH meeting should change to afternoon

-Original Message-
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:56 PM
To: John Bradley
Cc: oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth + Open ID Connect Meeting: Sunday, March 2

Yes, I'm familiar with life and I'm aware that things do change. And I have no 
doubt that scheduling this stuff is more than a little difficult. But with 
these Sunday meetings and the vast majority of us traveling internationally, 
it'd be really helpful if the timing can be nailed down as early as is 
reasonable and changes can be avoided.



On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Bradley  wrote:

Yes.

Things change that's life.



Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 25, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Brian Campbell

wrote:

Wasn't this originally announced with a different start time and
Connect and OAuth happening in the opposite order?


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
 wrote:


Hi all,

Lucy organized a room for our informal discussion about OAuth
(followed by the OpenID Connect meeting). We will start at 10am and
the room is reserved till 3pm. Palace C is the meeting room. At some
point in time the OAuth meeting will turn into the OpenID Connect
meeting. For those who are interested I will give a privacy tutorial at 3pm in 
the Blenheim room.

Mike, Nat, John, and others might have more information about the
agenda for the OpenID Connect meeting. For the OAuth meeting Derek
and I were planning to use the time to prepare the security
discussions for the official OAuth WG meeting. I am sure we will
arrange further meeting slots during the week to give enough room for
socializing and generating new ideas.

Ciao
Hannes


___
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





___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -19

[Lucy Lynch]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:


On 7/25/11 4:06 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

Draft 19 includes all the feedback received for -18:


BTW, the diff is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-v2-19.txt



clarifying question on section 10.1 -

I'm reading this as suggested handling for the Client URI portion
of a redirection endpoint - is that correct?


/psa
___
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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -19

[Lucy Lynch]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

The term Redirection URI describes the URI provided by the client 
throughout the document. The additional parameters added later by the 
authorization server are part of the redirection request but not the URI 
provided by the client.


Thanks -


EHL


-Original Message-
From: Lucy Lynch [mailto:lly...@civil-tongue.net]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 6:46 AM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -19

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:


On 7/25/11 4:06 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

Draft 19 includes all the feedback received for -18:


BTW, the diff is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-v2-19.txt



clarifying question on section 10.1 -

I'm reading this as suggested handling for the Client URI portion of a
redirection endpoint - is that correct?


/psa
___
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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Informal OAuth Chat @ IETF#84

[Lucy Lynch]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Leif Johansson wrote:


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 07/30/2012 06:35 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

You providing beer?

-Original Message- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:33 AM To: oauth@ietf.org WG Subject:
[OAUTH-WG] Informal OAuth Chat @ IETF#84

Hi all,

for those who are attending the IETF meeting in Vancouver I am
proposing to have an informal chat about ongoing activities.

I am proposing to meet after the Monday IAB technical plenary
(which finishes at 19:30).  I reserved the room Constable on the
4th floor.



Is there any way we can do this in the break before the plenary
instead? My brain will be toast by 19:30


better for me as well my week is pretty booked, so late additions are hard 
to accomedate.



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAW7ucACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnegQACgxb8llX8S84irE5Wk7DVM5nmL
dloAnioNKJiRXVQihvlJ31Bqz/0Qj8sr
=hsLb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, deadline Friday, March 18

[Lucy Lynch]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Mike Jones wrote:

As you know, the OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token draft -03 established the OAuth 
Errors 
Registry 
to increase interoperability among implementations using the related 
OAuth specifications.  As you also know, there has been some discussion 
about whether:


A)  The OAuth Errors Registry belongs in in the Framework specification 
rather than the bearer token specification,
B)  The OAuth Errors Registry should continue to be defined in the 
Bearer Token specification and apply to all OAuth specifications,
C)  The OAuth Errors Registry should reside in the Bearer Token 
specification but be scoped back to only apply to that specification, or
D)  The OAuth Errors Registry should be deleted because the set of 
errors should not be extensible.


Please vote for A, B, C, or D by Friday, March 18th.


Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes will
wait until after Prague in any case.

I personally believe that A makes the most sense, but given that other 
points of view have also been voiced, this consensus call is needed to 
resolve the issue.


Consensus isn't achieved by voting so all you'll get is poll data but that 
may be useful here. While I agree that there has been some discussion, I 
don't think the relative merits of the models have been made clear to the 
group. A fuller discussion of the need for an extensible registry for 
errors (before decided where to home the text) might be more helpful.


- Lucy



   Cheers,
   -- Mike

___
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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, deadline Friday, March 18

[Lucy Lynch]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes 
will wait until after Prague in any case.


To inform the discussions @ IETF 80 to determine what else might be 
needed, which goes to your second comment


ack - thanks!



-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy 
Lynch
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 5:41 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Vote: Location of OAuth Errors Registry, deadline 
Friday, March 18

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Mike Jones wrote:


As you know, the OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token draft -03 established the
OAuth Errors
Registry<http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03.ht
ml#errors-registry> to increase interoperability among implementations
using the related OAuth specifications.  As you also know, there has
been some discussion about whether:

A)  The OAuth Errors Registry belongs in in the Framework
specification rather than the bearer token specification,
B)  The OAuth Errors Registry should continue to be defined in the
Bearer Token specification and apply to all OAuth specifications,
C)  The OAuth Errors Registry should reside in the Bearer Token
specification but be scoped back to only apply to that specification,
or
D)  The OAuth Errors Registry should be deleted because the set of
errors should not be extensible.

Please vote for A, B, C, or D by Friday, March 18th.


Why the early cut-off date? As this is in advance of IETF 80, changes will wait 
until after Prague in any case.


I personally believe that A makes the most sense, but given that other
points of view have also been voiced, this consensus call is needed to
resolve the issue.


Consensus isn't achieved by voting so all you'll get is poll data but that may 
be useful here. While I agree that there has been some discussion, I don't 
think the relative merits of the models have been made clear to the group. A 
fuller discussion of the need for an extensible registry for errors (before 
decided where to home the text) might be more helpful.

- Lucy



   Cheers,
   -- Mike





___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth