Hannes,
I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Andrey
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:53 AM
wrote:
> I am not aware of any IPR associated with this document.
> Am 4. Okt. 2023, 17:16 +0200 schrieb Daniel Fett 40danielfett...@dmarc.ietf.org>:
>
> I am not aware of any IPR associated with
I can't help myself to not reply to this ... :)
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 11:18 AM Denis wrote:
>
>
> Bridging the architectural narrative used in the core OAuth framework (AS,
> RS, RO) and in the three roles model
> (Holder, Issuer, Verifier) would not be appropriate.
>
I'm not sure "would not
Hi Hannes,
The current charter of the OAuth WG is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/oauth/about/
The major problem is that both this charter and the OAuth 2.1 (or OAuth
2.0) authorization framework
cannot currently address the three roles model with an Holder, an Issuer
and
Hi Torsten,
Am 01.11.2023 um 17:43 schrieb tors...@lodderstedt.net:
Have a missed a posting on this list where you have started a
discussion with the WG of whether the drafts shall be moved into SPICE
now? Otherwise I’m wondering about the tone of your post. It’s the WG
that needs to decide on
John & Andrey - please reply to my email below.
Ciao
Hannes
Am 04.10.2023 um 15:41 schrieb Tschofenig, Hannes:
Hi Daniel, Torsten, Andrey, John,
as part of the shepherd write-up, all authors of
must confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for
full
conformance with
Hi Hannes,
Am 1. Nov. 2023, 12:21 +0100 schrieb Hannes Tschofenig
:
> Hi all,
>
> I am a bit puzzled by the response Pam and I received when putting the agenda
> for the SPICE BOF together. It appears that most people have not paid
> attention to the discussions during the last few months.
>
>
I was also surprised to see this agenda, based on the discussions on OAUTH
and SPICE lists.
I am supportive of recapping, the great work that is happening at OAUTH,
and how that work is applied outside of OAUTH to none OAUTH use cases.
I don't think work items that are close to the finish line
I didn't expect to see SD-JWT as a "proposed work item" on the SPICE BoF
agenda because its appropriateness to be and stay in the OAuth WG had been
discussed on list (e.g.,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/6qjAsqLwyp5WoxqY3dVv8SJ5nVM/)
and SD-JWT wasn't mentioned in the SPICE BoF
Moving a somewhat mature draft to another WG is highly likely slow down the
progress on that document: there is no guarantee there will be an overlap in
the WG members, there is a risk that discussions that were already resolved to
be re-opened to be, etc.
I consider SD-JWT closer to a finish
Hi all,
I am a bit puzzled by the response Pam and I received when putting the
agenda for the SPICE BOF together. It appears that most people have not
paid attention to the discussions during the last few months.
Let me try to get you up to speed. So, here is my summary.
The OAuth working
10 matches
Mail list logo
