On 2016-10-19 20:45, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,two questions surfaced at the last IETF meeting, namely 1) Do we want to proceed with the symmetric implementation of PoP or, alternatively, do we want to move it over to the ACE working group? 2) Do we want to continue the work on HTTP signing? We would appreciate your input on these two questions. Ciao Hannes & Derek
Hello,maybe my 2-cents as author of the ACE draft that needs PoP can contribute something here:
I would also prefer that you guys make the PoP specs and I just make a ACE profile on top of them. However the ACE work is moving forward and the PoP work at OAuth seems to be stuck.
I've currently taken what was available form draft-ietf-oauth-pop-* and moved the relevant text into draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz (acknowledging the original authors of course), since it was unclear to me what the future status of the pop drafts would be.
I'm absolutely willing to remove the text again and reference an OAuth WG document instead, if I feel it will not significantly delay the progress of the ACE draft.
Hope this information helps in the decision making. Regards, Ludwig -- Ludwig Seitz, PhD SICS Swedish ICT AB Ideon Science Park, Building Beta 2 Scheelevägen 17, SE-223 70 Lund Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51The RISE institutes SP, Swedish ICT and Innventia are merging in order to create a unified institute sector and become a stronger innovation partner for businesses and society. At the end of the year we will change our name to RISE. Read more at www.ri.se/en/about-rise
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
