#22: In final review before WG last call
Changes (by barryleiba@…):
* status: new => assigned
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner: barryleiba@…
Type: state|
#22: In final review before WG last call
Changes (by barryleiba@…):
* owner: => barryleiba@…
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner: barryleiba@…
Type: state|
#22: In final review before WG last call
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: state| Status: new
Priority: informatio
(- apps-discuss)
I don't have the bandwidth to do anything other than edit the v2 document.
Sorry.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 12:28 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG; apps
Thank you for taking the initiate to post this, Eran. And thank you,
Hannes, for the detailed and actionable reply.
If Eran is willing/able to do #1 & #2, I'd be more than happy to do #3.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
wrote:
> Hi Eran,
>
> http://oauth.net/grant_type/saml/2
On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Other grant types would then go in
> urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-holder-of-the-key
This sentence from my earlier mail could be misunderstood. To pick Mike's
example for the JWT assertion profile we would then register something
Hi Eran,
http://oauth.net/grant_type/saml/2.0/bearer is definitely not a good idea since
a lookup would not return anything useful (most likely it will just fail).
Whenever there is something that can be looked up, it will be looked up .
I would create an IETF URN Sub-namespace, as documented
If you're going with urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:grant_type:saml:2.0:bearer in the
SAML assertion profile, I'll use
urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:grant_type:jwt:1.0:bearer in the JWT assertion profile.
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oau
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 6:15 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] SAML Assertion Draft Items [Item 2: URI(s)]
>
> Discussion on the other item, the grant_type URI, inline b
The OAuth WG is looking for assistance from the application area community.
OAuth 2.0 [1] defines a URI-namespaced method for defining extension grant
types[2]. The first specification to use this method needs to pick a URI
identifier for using SAML assertions [3]. Options proposed:
urn:oasis:n
Sounds reasonable. Can you provide a schedule outline?
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:53 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] SAML Assertion Draft Items [Item 1: client auth]
We probably need some help from the chairs to close 15-18. Maybe make an
official request for feedback with a deadline?
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 6:22 AM
> To: OAuth W
#20: Missing reference to DOM variable example in section 10.12 Cross-Site
Request Forgery
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Stat
#21: Need editing for 10.13 Clickjacking to better align with the protocol
terminology, missing reference for x-frame-options header
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
T
#19: Missing example from security section 10.4 Refresh Tokens
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
> List of open issues:
>
> * Consensus for new Client Registration section (2)
> * Consensus for revised Redirection URI section (3.1.2)
> * Consensus for new token endpoint Client Authentication section (3.2.1)
> * Consensus for new authorization endpoint response type extensibility (8.4)
> * Miss
#18: Consensus for new authorization endpoint response type extensibility (8.4)
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
#17: Consensus for new token endpoint Client Authentication section (3.2.1)
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
#16: Consensus for revised Redirection URI section (3.1.2)
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Pri
#15: Consensus for new Client Registration section (2)
--
-+--
Reporter: barryleiba@… | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priorit
Discussion on the other item, the grant_type URI, inline below.
This whole thing seems like it shouldn't be an issue at all as there's
no functionality involved. But I've been hung up on it for a while
and the spec needs some URI. I could *really* use the advice of the AD
and/or Chairs on this.
Thanks for the response, Eran. I'm breaking this thread up into the
distinct issues. Reply inline below to the first item about client
auth.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>
> > However, the SAML draft does not currently cover SAML for client
> > authentication and pro
22 matches
Mail list logo
