As one of the authors of this draft I support adoption. Thanks, [MATTR website]<https://mattr.global/>
Tobias Looker MATTR +64 273 780 461 tobias.looker@mattr.global<mailto:first.last@mattr.global> [MATTR website]<https://mattr.global/> [MATTR on LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/mattrglobal> [MATTR on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/mattrglobal> [MATTR on Github]<https://github.com/mattrglobal> This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it – please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 2:41 AM To: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, rifaat.s.ietf <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - JWT and CWT Status List EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside of our organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. I support adoption, but we also implemented a similar spec and have similar observations/reservations as Orie. Really hope this draft can build up on the learnings to date and be a significant improvement.. From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Orie Steele Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 6:10 AM To: rifaat.s.ietf <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - JWT and CWT Status List I support adoption. We have implementations of a similar spec and we don't think it would be good for vendors to have to support both, but that's not under control of OAuth... we hope there will be significant improvements made, after adoption to justify a separate spec, aside from CWT being generally better than JWT. Many of these improvements have already been discussed on the other spec, and with the authors. It's unfortunate that the spec does not cite previous work, which the authors and undoubtedly aware of, the same comment was made at the microphone at the last IETF. We look forward to reviewing drafts and implementing the spec to compare it's performance vs the existing W3C work item, which I mentioned on a previous thread. If the performance is not substantially better I don't think the draft should become an RFC, but I'm happy to help make it better if that's possible... and this working group has the expertise to improve this work, so I think transferring control to the working group makes sense. OS On Sat, Sep 30, 2023, 7:53 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: All, This is an official call for adoption for the JWT and CWT Status List draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-looker-oauth-jwt-cwt-status-list/ Please, reply on the mailing list and let us know if you are in favor or against adopting this draft as WG document, by Oct 13th. Regards, Rifaat & Hannes _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
