Re: [OAUTH-WG] Support for SAML assertion reference formats in OAuth SAML Assertion profile

2013-03-13 Thread Brian Campbell
I also don't think there's much value to it. Practically relative to the additional complexity it'd bring along for the ride. On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:17 PM, John Bradley wrote: > It is a direct connection and not a browser redirect. I don't think there > is much value in supporting something

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Support for SAML assertion reference formats in OAuth SAML Assertion profile

2013-03-13 Thread John Bradley
It is a direct connection and not a browser redirect. I don't think there is much value in supporting something like artifact. On 2013-03-13, at 4:13 PM, prateek mishra wrote: > SAML supports a couple of SAML assertion reference formats, wherein > assertions are passed by reference. > > One

[OAUTH-WG] Support for SAML assertion reference formats in OAuth SAML Assertion profile

2013-03-13 Thread prateek mishra
SAML supports a couple of SAML assertion reference formats, wherein assertions are passed by reference. One format is the artifact, which can be carried by a thisisanartifact element Another possibility is the SAML URI binding which supports references of the form (abcde is a SAML id) GET

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Additional OAuth Feature Matrix questions intended to clarify extensions used

2013-03-13 Thread Mike Jones
And one more question... What additional response_type values do you define, and what do they do? From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:08 PM To: Justin P. Richer; Chuck Mortimore; Todd W Lainhart (lainh...@us.ibm

[OAUTH-WG] Additional OAuth Feature Matrix questions intended to clarify extensions used

2013-03-13 Thread Mike Jones
Having looked at the results yesterday, I'd appreciate it if each you that already supplied data about your implementations could also answer these additional questions. All are intended to give more insight into extensions defined and used. (In many cases, I recognize that your answers will b

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Registration: Internationalization of Human-Readable names

2013-03-13 Thread Brian Campbell
Seems reasonable to me. On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Justin Richer wrote: > So with what little feedback I've gotten, I'm proposing to add text from > the proposed webfinger and OIDC drafts for the hash-based localization of > strings, with the following properties: > > * All localized ve

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Registration: Internationalization of Human-Readable names

2013-03-13 Thread Justin Richer
So with what little feedback I've gotten, I'm proposing to add text from the proposed webfinger and OIDC drafts for the hash-based localization of strings, with the following properties: * All localized versions of fields are fully optional on both client and server * If a localized version of a f