hat about the example using SAML assertion?
> From: Brian Campbell
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:42:21 -0700
> To: Eran Hammer-lahav
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1
> subsection on assertions
>
> I believe the new asserti
rtion draft, do we still want to make this change?
EHL
From: Brian Campbell
mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:25:12 -0700
To: oauth mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection
on assertions
One of the act
om: Brian Campbell
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:25:12 -0700
> To: oauth
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection
> on assertions
>
> One of the action items out of yesterday's meeting was to draft some
> text for a section 4.5.1 in
In light of the new assertion draft, do we still want to make this change?
EHL
From: Brian Campbell
mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:25:12 -0700
To: oauth mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 s
n item was given to look at creating a
>> separate document for assertion covering authentication and authorization.
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:22 PM
>> To: Anthon
ier.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Anthony Nadalin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:03 PM
> To: Brian Campbell
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1
...@pingidentity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:22 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1
subsection on assertions
It's not exactly clear to me what that means.
Near the end of the interim meeting on Monday there was a specific discu
bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:54 AM
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1
> subsection on assertions
>
> That is another way to approach it and I understand there has been some
-
From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:54 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1
subsection on assertions
That is another way to approach it and I understand there has been some talk
Of
> Brian Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:25 AM
> To: oauth
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection
> on assertions
>
> One of the action items out of yesterday's meeting was to draft some text for
> a section 4.5.1 in cor
[mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:25 AM
To: oauth
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection on
assertions
One of the action items out of yesterday's meeting was to draft some text for a
section 4.5.1 in core
One of the action items out of yesterday's meeting was to draft some
text for a section 4.5.1 in core that defined the optional but
recommended use of an "assertion" parameter for extension grants where
the use of a single parameter to carry the grant/assertion was
possible. Below is a first cut a
12 matches
Mail list logo
