ype.
>
> We're still dealing with ws-federation passive profile in saml dominated
> world. The oauth working group shouldn't repeat that sin.
>
> -cmort
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>
>> There are folks that are not implement
"I had personally requested the OIDC community about six months ago to
describe some minimal subset which we could all reasonably implement. I was
told that the specification was "locked down" and fully debugged and so
on, so no changes could be made. Imagine my surprise to find that in the
final
Where is the confusion ?
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:59 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
I know a number of people implementing
http
ns of this already
>>> and much interest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
>>> To: Brian Campbell
>>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>>>
gt; Regards,
> Anil
>
> On 05/14/2014 10:47 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>
> I agree with Phil on this one, there are implementations of this already
> and much interest
>
>
>
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org ] *On
> Behalf Of *Phil Hunt
> *Sent:* Wed
oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Hunt
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
*To:* Brian Campbell
*Cc:* oauth@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
On the contrary. I and others are interested.
We are waiting for the charter to pick up the work.
Regard
e
> connect everwhere as it’s over kill where we only need a the functionality
> of a4c.
>
>
>
> *From:* Chuck Mortimore [mailto:cmortim...@salesforce.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:39 AM
> *To:* Anthony Nadalin
> *Cc:* Phil Hunt; Brian Campbell; oauth@ietf.org
>
>
wrote:
> Please list the implementstions
>
>
>
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *John Bradley
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:59 AM
>
> *To:* Brian Campbell
> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and
>
> To: Brian Campbell
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
>
>
>
> I know a number of people implementing
>
>
>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-tcse-03
>
>
>
> Havi
a4c.
From: Chuck Mortimore [mailto:cmortim...@salesforce.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: Phil Hunt; Brian Campbell; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
Can you point to one publicly available or publicly documented
Please list the implementstions
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:59 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
I know a number of people implementing
http
I know a number of people implementing
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-tcse-03
Having it on a RFC track may make sense.
I remain to be convinced that a4c ads anything other than confusion.
If the WG wants to take it up it should be aligned with Connect. I think there
are m
Phil, neither is Connect an authentication mechanism, it (and SAML,
WS-fed etc) is also a 'method for providing end-user authentication
information to client applications'
We don't need a Connect--
paul
On 5/14/14, 1:29 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
This is not an authentication mechanism - it is a met
Would still love to hear you answer _why_ "the IETF needs a draft that
enables and provides user authentication information to clients."
Would still love to see Tony point to the existing a4c implementations.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
> This is not an authentication
This is not an authentication mechanism - it is a method for providing end-user
authentication information to client applications. I will publish a revised
draft shortly.
Phil
@independentid
www.independentid.com
phil.h...@oracle.com
On May 14, 2014, at 10:23 AM, George Fletcher wrote:
>
: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
On the contrary. I and others are interested.
We are waiting for the charter to pick up the work.
Regardless there will be a new draft shortly.
Phil
On May 14, 2014, at 5:24, Brian Campbell <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote
I also would like to see the WG not focus on another authentication
mechanism and instead look at work like Brian suggested.
Thanks,
George
On 5/14/14, 11:41 AM, Chuck Mortimore wrote:
Agree with Brian and Justin here. Work is already covered in Connect
- cmort
On May 14, 2014, at 8:39 AM,
t;
> -cmort
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>
>> I agree with Phil on this one, there are implementations of this
>> already and much interest
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ph
nthony Nadalin
> wrote:
> I agree with Phil on this one, there are implementations of this already and
> much interest
>
>
>
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
> To: Brian Campbell
> C
gt; *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering
>
>
>
> On the contrary. I and others are interested.
>
>
>
> We are waiting for the charter to pick up the work.
>
>
>
> Regardless there will be a new draft shortly.
>
>
> Phil
>
&
I think there's a use case for this work that may or may not be covered by the
PoP spec, and in fact I think this work is related to that. The MAC token work
is really one use case of POP tokens. Rather than shouting it down let's
figure out how to solve this use case.
On Wednesday, May 14,
I agree with Phil on this one, there are implementations of this already and
much interest
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and
I agree with Brian and object to the Authentication work item. I think there’s
limited interest and utility in such a draft, especially now that OpenID
Connect has been published and its core authentication capabilities are
identical to what was called for in the other draft a year ago (a simila
Agree with Brian and Justin here. Work is already covered in Connect
- cmort
On May 14, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
I agree with Brian and object to the Authentication work item. I think
there’s limited interest and utility in such a draft, especially now that
OpenID Connect has be
On the contrary. I and others are interested.
We are waiting for the charter to pick up the work.
Regardless there will be a new draft shortly.
Phil
> On May 14, 2014, at 5:24, Brian Campbell wrote:
>
> I would object to 'OAuth Authentication' being picked up by the WG as a work
> item. T
I would object to 'OAuth Authentication' being picked up by the WG as a
work item. The starting point draft has expired and it hasn't really been
discusses since Berlin nearly a year ago. As I recall, there was only very
limited interest in it even then. I also don't believe it fits well with
the
Hi all,
you might have seen that we pushed the assertion documents and the JWT
documents to the IESG today. We have also updated the milestones on the
OAuth WG page.
This means that we can plan to pick up new work in the group.
We have sent a request to Kathleen to change the milestone for the OA
27 matches
Mail list logo
