Not before the submission deadline tomorrow. Probably sometime before submissions reopen.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > 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
