a service.
From: Colin Snover [mailto:ietf@zetafleet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: William Mills; David Recordon; OAuth WG; jh...@photobucket.com
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth
It's something people get wrong and we should make a way to get it
right.
*From:* Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:08 AM
*To:* William Mills
*Cc:* David Recordon; Colin Snover; OAuth
me form of force_auth is needed. I
> >>> haven't read enough on the "immediate" proposal, but I
> know that we
> >>> have run into the problem of trusting currently set
> cookies in the
> >>> browser (even when we're actually sending a us
oposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Colin Snover
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:23 AM
>>>> To: Eran H
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:08 AM
To: William Mills
Cc: David Recordon; Colin Snover; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth' request parameter
The question is if we have consensus to force prov
*From:* oauth-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>
[mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Colin Snover
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:23 AM
*To:* Eran Hammer-Lahav
*Cc:* OAut
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:58 AM
To: William Mills
Cc: Colin Snover; Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth' request parameter
un...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>]
On Behalf Of Colin Snover
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:23 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth' request parameter
On 22/07/28164 13:59, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
The following was submitte
t: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth' request parameter
I support immediate and a form of forced auth (ala OpenID's PAPE) but
not in the core spec. They both should be part of an identity extension.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:51 AM, W
auth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Colin Snover
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:23 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth' request parameter
On 22/07/28164 13:59, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
The following was submitted via the shared-copy page but does not
>
> I'm a +1 on the force_auth proposal.
>
> --
> *From:* oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Colin Snover
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:23 AM
> *To:* Eran Hammer-Lahav
> *Cc:* OAuth WG
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_au
th WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] ' force_auth' request parameter
On 22/07/28164 13:59, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
The following was submitted via the shared-copy page but does
not belong with editorial feedback. This needs to be discussed and
Building consensus around new ideas is tough. The only advice I can give you is
to identify the people most likely to support this idea and ping them off-list
to try and get their support. I don't think it belongs in core because core
currently represents pretty solid consensus on the feature se
On 22/07/28164 13:59, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
The following was submitted via the shared-copy page but does not
belong with editorial feedback. This needs to be discussed and
supported on the list before added the specification. I think it
belongs where 'immediate' is specified.
EHL
--
The following was submitted via the shared-copy page but does not belong with
editorial feedback. This needs to be discussed and supported on the list before
added the specification. I think it belongs where 'immediate' is specified.
EHL
-- Forwarded Message
From: An anonymous reader
Date:
15 matches
Mail list logo
