On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just catching up on this tread, but would appreciate an in-room > discussion on this topic that doesn't assume the adopted draft has the > agreed upon approach as I am not reading that there is consensus on that > approach in this thread at all. > > Could we see presentations on Mike's draft and Brian's? Justin, do you > agree that Brian's draft covers the use case in our draft as was implied in > this thread? > s/our/your/ :-) > > I'd like to see a discussion guided by the chairs to see if we can find a > go-forward plan. There seems to be differing opinions and maybe a pull > towards simpler approaches that extend Oauth. > > Thank you. > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-i...@mit.edu> wrote: > >> Speaking as someone who is reasonably familiar with Kerberos and the >> general concepts involved, I find both Microsoft/Kerberos technology >> ((constrained delegation/protocol transition) and the ws-trust text >> horribly confusing and would recommend against all of the above as >> examples of clarity. >> After several years I've finally gotten to a point where I understand >> the Kerberos terms, but that's simply by using them regularly, not >> because there was clarity. >> >> >> This may be a case where new terminology is worthwhile if you can find >> something that multiple people (especially new readers not overly >> familiar with the concepts) find to be clear. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > -- Best regards, Kathleen
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
