Hi Hannes,
Thanks for the review. Please see inline
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:21 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-au...@tools.ietf.org;
> gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com
Hi all,
Simon asked us (Derek and myself) to do a quick review of this document
developed within another working group that happens to use OAuth.
* Background
TURN is a special tunnelling gateway (very much like an IPsec gateway
would be) but designed specifically to relay voice/video traffic. T
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange
Authors : Michael B. Jones
Anthony
Hello Hannes,
Thank you for the message. My reply is in-line.
On Aug 21, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
wrote:
> Hi Zhanna,
>
> thanks for sharing your thoughts with the OAuth group.
>
> I have been wondering where this audit identifier should go. Are you
> talking about putting a new i
Hi Jorge, Hi Scott,
we need your advice in the OAuth working group.
We are about to finalize a specification called 'Dynamic Client
Registration' (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-19)
and this document intentionally harmonizes work done in two other
organizations, namely in Kan
Hi Justin,
thanks for the quick update.
I just double-checked this version of the document with the discussions
we had during the last two months and the necessary clarifications have
been made (as you indicated in your mail below).
I have updated the shepherd write-up, see
https://github.com/ha
Sorry for distributing the meeting minutes so late.
Here they are:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-oauth
Ciao
Hannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
Hi Zhanna,
thanks for sharing your thoughts with the OAuth group.
I have been wondering where this audit identifier should go. Are you
talking about putting a new identifier into some protocol exchanges (and
which messages) or are we talking about an implementation issue?
Also, when you say you