Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: Call for consensus on SPICE charter

Not sure if techies care, but that really needs to be a four party transaction where the subject of a credential may not be the holder of the device where the credential is held. Your are thereby excluding appropriately 15% of humanity. This is, frankly, unconscionable and you must accommodate all

[OAUTH-WG] Updating "Identity Chaining across Trust Domains" draft name

Following the working group adoption of the "Identity Chaining across Trust Domains" draft (see draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-00 - Identity Chaining across Trust Domains), the editors thought it appropriate to update

[OAUTH-WG] FW: Call for consensus on SPICE charter

Forwarding to raise awareness. Please provide feedback on the SPICE charter by Thursday, February 22 by using the spice@ietf mailing list (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice). This consensus thread starts here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spice/TTgOt6qI3CzILzV4i34nLmkmeMc/.

Re: [OAUTH-WG] About: "Rewrite unlinkability considerations" #354

Hi Brian, The word "*Untrackability"***is not currently present. In other words, it refers to the ability for an Issuer to act as *Big Brother*. This word allows to make immediately a difference between concerns that apply to Issuers *(**Untrackability)*** and different concerns that apply

Re: [OAUTH-WG] About: "Rewrite unlinkability considerations" #354

I'm not sure what the issue is but it appears commenting on the pull request is possible because your comment shows up (twice even). That said, I believe the sentiment of your suggestions here are already in the content of the PR but just organized/expressed somewhat differently (in a style more

Re: [OAUTH-WG] IETF119 - Call for topics

The authors would like to discuss updates on the Identity Chaining Across Trust Domains draft. Kelley ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

[OAUTH-WG] About: "Rewrite unlinkability considerations" #354

https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/pull/354 Since this pull request is blocked, I could not post a comment. Instead of one section about "Unlinkability" (12.4), there should be two sections:     "*Unlinkability between Verifiers*" means that :     1) if two