kens.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 4:36 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory to Implement &a
Hannes,
I don't see any proposed text here, I see re-chartering
suggestions. The latter is not going to happen if the
current main documents are wedged. Please focus on the
former now.
You know that I disagree with you and a number of WG
participants about this, so no need for me to repeat
myse
On 08/12/2011 14:18, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Hannes,
Some random thoughts about your message below:
I read through this rather long mail thread again and see whether we are
reaching any conclusion on this discussion.
In turns out that there are actually two types of discussions tha
+1
William Mills schrieb:
+1
_
From: Justin Richer
To: oauth@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory to Implement & Interoperability
+1
Very well said, Hannes.
-- Justin
On 12/08/2011 09:1
On 12/08/2011 07:17 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Mike,
I guess we are on the same page with regard to discovery/negotiation. I do not
care so much how it is implemented as long it is there.
While certain libraries may implement everything I don't think it is reasonable
to assume that every
+1
From: Justin Richer
To: oauth@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory to Implement & Interoperability
+1
Very well said, Hannes.
-- Justin
On 12/08/2011 09:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all
+1 to both John and Hannes comments.
Phil
@independentid
www.independentid.com
phil.h...@oracle.com
On 2011-12-08, at 6:37 AM, John Bradley wrote:
> Agreed, The best place for Token type and some of the other issues is in
> higher level profiles.
>
> John B.
> On 2011-12-08, at 11:18 AM
Hi Mike,
I guess we are on the same page with regard to discovery/negotiation. I do not
care so much how it is implemented as long it is there.
While certain libraries may implement everything I don't think it is reasonable
to assume that every deployment will have every functionality impleme
On 12/08/2011 06:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
3) We want the ability for algorithm negotiation/discovery, at least up to a
certain degree. For example, it would would nice if a client talks to a server
and they both implement TLS 1.2 then they actually use it. The requirement for
crypto-agi
Agreed, The best place for Token type and some of the other issues is in
higher level profiles.
John B.
On 2011-12-08, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I read through this rather long mail thread again and see whether we are
> reaching any conclusion on this discussion.
+1
Very well said, Hannes.
-- Justin
On 12/08/2011 09:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,
I read through this rather long mail thread again and see whether we are
reaching any conclusion on this discussion.
In turns out that there are actually two types of discussions that relate to
ea
Hi all,
I read through this rather long mail thread again and see whether we are
reaching any conclusion on this discussion.
In turns out that there are actually two types of discussions that relate to
each other, namely the TLS version support and the token type.
Let me go back in time a li
12 matches
Mail list logo
