Sounds reasonable. Can you provide a schedule outline? EHL
> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:53 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: oauth > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] SAML Assertion Draft Items [Item 1: client auth] > > Thanks for the response, Eran. I'm breaking this thread up into the distinct > issues. Reply inline below to the first item about client auth. > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav > <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > > > > > However, the SAML draft does not currently cover SAML for client > > > authentication and profiling draft-ietf-oauth-assertions would > > > suggest that it should. Is there any general consensus as to if > > > SAML should be profiled as a client authentication method? It is > > > certainly feasible but might require restructuring and retitling the > > > draft. > > > > Are there use cases pending such functionality today? It would be a shame > to delay an otherwise useful draft when the functionality can be added later. > > I don't have any such use cases in the near future. Perhaps others can speak > up? I personally see assertion based grants as being more important and > more immediately useful. That was one of the reasons I was looking to keep > assertion grants and client assertion authentication separate. That said, > Chuck has done a nice job with his general treatment of them together in > draft-ietf-oauth-assertions and the logical thing to do, in terms of how the > various documents play together, would be to have draft-ietf-oauth-saml2- > bearer cover client auth now too. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
