Hi all,
we are planning to hold a 1-day interim meeting for the OAuth working group.
Date: 23rd May, 2011 (9am - 6pm)
Location: Mountain View, CA, US
Host: Tbd.
Agenda: Discussion of remaining open issues with the OAuth 2.0 specification,
and other working group items.
Ciao
Hannes Blaine
Happy to host in Palo Alto.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi all,
we are planning to hold a 1-day interim meeting for the OAuth working group.
Date: 23rd May, 2011 (9am - 6pm)
Location: Mountain View, CA, US
Host: Tbd.
Agenda:
To make it easier to keep track of how many attendees we might get,
I've created a wiki page for probable attendees to record their
intent:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/wiki/InterimMeetingAttendance
If you intend to attend, please help by going to that page and editing
it, and
Secretary - this is approved, you can send a note to ietf-announce.
In case folks aren't familiar with them the guidelines for interim
meetings are at [1].
I think this is a fine idea. Unfortunately I can't be there due to
another commitment.
Stephen.
[1]
I'm unable to attend in person but I'm hoping that remote participation
will be an option - any hope of that?
Thanks,
Melinda
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
I can setup audio and video conferencing if it's at Facebook.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm unable to attend in person but I'm hoping that remote participation
will be an option - any hope of that?
Thanks,
Melinda
Some additional input
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:28 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Section 3
This got a little bit too nested so I kept only the comments where we are not
on the same
From: Anthony Nadalin tony...@microsoft.commailto:tony...@microsoft.com
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:51:33 -0700
AJN- So the client credentials originate from WRAP also, it’s not completely
new, it may be new the way that it got worded but the same functionality was in
WRAP. The section 5.2
I disagree here, this is not new or even completely new use case as this was in
WRAP as we are using this feature now. I would agree that it's not very well
documented but that was attempted by Yaron in his append was to clarify the
support.
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
Let me make sure we're clear here:
Your argument is that this is not a new use case because WRAP allows
'additional parameters' and doesn't explicitly forbids it?
If I missed something, please quote the exact normative language in WRAP
showing how to use two assertions, or any text
Not sure I have to show you anything. The WRAP specification does not preclude
the usage of 2 assertions as this was one of the must support use cases for
WRAP. As I indicated this was not the best spelled out feature in the WRAP
specification. Yaron's append was an attempt to clarify the use
The OAUTH Working Group will hold a 1-day interim meeting as follows:
Date: 23rd May, 2011 (9am - 6pm)
Location: Mountain View, CA, US
Host: TBD
Agenda: Discussion of remaining open issues with the OAuth 2.0
specification, and other working group items.
Further details will be
That WRAP allowed extension and that someone extended with a second assertion
does not imply that a second assertion is provided for in WRAP. It means that
WRAP allowed extension. AQre we trying to bring that extension into the main
spec as a needed use case?
There is no extension in WRAP to allow this, it’s allowed as part of WRAP.
From: William J. Mills [mailto:wmi...@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Eran Hammer-Lahav; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Section 3
That WRAP allowed
Yes! Exactly as it is already allowed in v2.
EHL
From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tony...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 4:12 PM
To: William J. Mills; Eran Hammer-Lahav; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Section 3
There is no extension in WRAP to allow this, it’s
Are you kidding me? Not the best spelled out feature?
It is not spelled at all. Not using a single character! Maybe Dick was using
magic ink for this section.
Here are the facts:
The WRAP specification does not preclude the usage of 2 assertions. V2 does not
preclude the usage of 2
+1 for Facebook.
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of David Recordon
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:26 PM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: Barry Leiba; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Interim Meeting
I can setup audio and video
On 2011-04-22, at 5:18 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
Are you kidding me? “Not the best spelled out feature”?
It is not spelled at all. Not using a single character! Maybe Dick was using
magic ink for this section.
No magic ink was used. :)
Tony: I looked over your last emails and while I
18 matches
Mail list logo
