On 14/06/11 06:20, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The charter that we discussed here was sent out for internal review on
> 31 May, and was approved by the IESG last Thursday -- that should be
> officially announced any time now. That charter, if you recall, was
> very focused and included milestones for s
> I think there has been a confusion. I also thought that the rechartering
> was to be discussed at the July meeting; the IETF call for rechartering was
> issued on May 31.
Right, and that call was not for discussion of rechartering, but for a
review of the specific proposed charter.
The charter
Barry,
I think there has been a confusion. I also thought that the
rechartering was to be discussed at the July meeting; the IETF call for
rechartering was issued on May 31.
My question: has the rechartering discussion been closed in the WG? (If
so, I guess I missed the point when it happe
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
wrote:
> We at Deutsche Telekom have implemented an OAuth 2.0 extension supporting
> that use case. It's called "bulk authorization".
>
> Would that be an interessting topic we could discuss at IETF-81 for the
> re-chartering? I could present o
+1
Igor
Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
Hi,
I also see the need to request and issue multiple tokens in a single
authorization process. There has already been some discussion about
this topic roughly a year ago:
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg02688.html.
- http://www.iet
Hi,
I also see the need to request and issue multiple tokens in a single
authorization process. There has already been some discussion about this
topic roughly a year ago:
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg02688.html.
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/m
en-type-aware?
>
>
>
>
> From: Paul Tarjan
> To: "oauth at ietf.org"
> Date: 07-06-11 11:57 AM
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions
> Sent by: oauth-bounces at ietf.org
>
>
>
> Hi fellow OAuthers,
>
> As we discussed
in a separate token spec rather than part of the core -
provided the client can be token-type-aware?
From: Paul Tarjan
To: "oauth@ietf.org"
Date: 07-06-11 11:57 AM
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions
Sent by:oauth-boun...@ietf.org
Hi fellow OAuthe
Hi fellow OAuthers,
As we discussed at the meeting there are a few extensions that we'd like
to implement. To do this, we'd like the response_type to be extensible. We
are proposing two new values. "none" and "signed_request token" (and
"token signed_request" for symmetry). Or if you want to turn
