Thanks Peter. I did update the draft and submit it with a draft-ietf-oauth- prefix. The I-D submission summary page for it is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/status.cgi?submission_id=28905
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > <hat type='AD'/> > > Agreed. > > I'll poke the chairs about accepting this as a WG item. :) > > Peter > > On 12/14/10 6:26 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >> Prepare a new draft if needed and submit it with draft-ietf-oauth- >> prefix. One of the chairs will need to approve it and it will be >> published. I think we have wide consensus for this and this was >> already proposed a long time ago with no objections. >> >> EHL >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Campbell >>> [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, >>> 2010 10:18 AM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav Cc: Torsten Lodderstedt; oauth >>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for >>> draft-campbell- oauth-saml-01 >>> >>> I don't have any objection to it and think it's probably cleaner. >>> >>> Previously I'd informally asked that the SAML profile be considered >>> a WG item and I don't think there was any objection. What needs to >>> be done to make that happen? >>> >>> If you/we take this approach, what else will you need from me? >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav >>> <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: >>>> Torsten made a good argument that now that we combined assertions >>>> and >>> extensions into a single mechanism, it does not make sense to make >>> the 'assertion' parameter required, and that some extensions will >>> be confusing with such a parameter name. In addition, the recent >>> document split demoted this specification from 'core' to >>> 'framework' which is more friendly to extensions and companion >>> specifications. >>>> >>>> I would suggest we drop the assertion parameter from the spec, >>>> but add a >>> directly reference to the SAML assertion specification and give an >>> example showing the parameter. This will remove the normative >>> language (which really doesn't belong there - something I've long >>> maintained), but will keep the SAML assertion option on equal >>> ground (directly demonstrated in the spec). After all, you can't >>> implement assertions just by reading the framework spec, you still >>> need the SAML work. >>>> >>>> This will require moving the SAML into a WG item (not a must but >>>> best) >>> which I am supportive of and would like to see happen quickly (in a >>> few days). >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> EHL >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Campbell >>>>> [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, >>>>> 2010 8:11 AM To: Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; >>>>> oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification >>>>> for draft-campbell- oauth-saml-01 >>>>> >>>>> Future revisions of this SAML draft will build off whatever >>>>> assertion/extension mechanism is provided by the core framework >>>>> spec. However, some compelling reasons were previously given >>>>> for keeping the 'assertion' (one thread on the topic: >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg04401.html) >>>>> >>>>> > parameter in core. Has the thinking on that changed? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt >>>>> <tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 14.12.2010 um 04:19 schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav >>>>> <e...@hueniverse.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the 'assertion' parameter should be moved into this >>>>>>> draft and >>>>> defined there. This will also facilitate its proper definition >>>>> and status (required, singular, etc.). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EHL >>>>>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
