On 2010-03-09, at 7:05 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
>
> It's a good idea to give guidance on how the scope parameter should be used.
> That way, it will help avoid "abuse" of the parameter for other purposes, and
> clashes if different deployments are using it in different ways. (I suspect
> that th
Thanks for your further feedback. Just a couple of comments back (eliding
other portions of the thread):
On 8 Mar 2010, at 2:21 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> On 2010-03-05, at 6:57 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
2c. Currently, WRAP doesn't say anything about how to fill the scope
parameter valu
On 2010-03-05, at 6:57 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
> More below...
>
> On 4 Mar 2010, at 5:43 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> Thanks Eve, comments inserted ...
>>
>> On 2010-03-04, at 12:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
>>
>>> As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
>>> seems
More below...
On 4 Mar 2010, at 5:43 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> Thanks Eve, comments inserted ...
>
> On 2010-03-04, at 12:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
>
>> As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
>> seems to need "more" than what the WRAP paradigm offers (both prof
Quick feedback...
On 4 Mar 2010, at 5:42 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> Hi Eve
>
> Looking at the WRAP oriented comments in the spec, here are some comments /
> questions:
>
> Note
> WRAP doesn't seem to say HTTPS is required for the user authorization URL; is
> this a bug in the WRAP spec? If not,
Thanks Eve, comments inserted ...
On 2010-03-04, at 12:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
> As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
> seems to need "more" than what the WRAP paradigm offers (both profiling and
> extending), based on the proposal at:
>
> http://kantarai
Hi Eve
Looking at the WRAP oriented comments in the spec, here are some comments /
questions:
Note
WRAP doesn't seem to say HTTPS is required for the user authorization URL; is
this a bug in the WRAP spec? If not, is it a good idea for us to profile it in
this way? Finally, is this the right p
As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
seems to need "more" than what the WRAP paradigm offers (both profiling and
extending), based on the proposal at:
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/~xmlg...@idp.protectnetwork.org/Proposal+for+UMA+1.0+Core+P
Folks may be interested to see the following experiment being performed in the
UMA group:
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/~xmlg...@idp.protectnetwork.org/Proposal+for+UMA+1.0+Core+Protocol
This is a proposal for a spec that uses a WRAP-friendly approach to solving our
use cases.
