This is a real crappy name, as its not SSO, it's a "token delegation agent" (so proposal is to handle both authentication and authorization). Question is does it belong here or at IETF, if the dynamic registration fits in IETF why wouldn't this ?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:26 PM To: John Bradley; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Paul Madsen; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group This proposed charter did not incorporate any of the proposed improvements and clarifications that I circulated to the authors - not even the spelling corrections or the (I believe necessary) statement that "This specification will not make breaking changes to OpenID Connect 1.0". My proposed version is attached. I would appreciate it you would resubmit the charter with these corrections incorporated. After that, I will support the formation of the working group. Thank you, -- Mike -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:35 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Paul Madsen; Chuck Mortimore; [email protected]; Nat Sakimura; matake@gmail; [email protected] Subject: [OIDFSC] Native application SSO Working Group The enclosed Work Group Charter is being sent to the Specs Council for review in anticipation of chartering the Group. It is best have this activity under the foundation IPR as soon as possible. Regards John B. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
