hich is what the spec already does).
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: John Bradley [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:08 AM
>> To: Phil Hunt
>> Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@
Yes
-Original Message-
From: Phil Hunt [mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:55 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: John Bradley; oauth@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
Yes. Mike and I did agree on this.
To confirm
gt;>
>>>>> Thanks for your comments, Phil. I'm working on addressing them at
>>>>> present.
>>>>>
>>>>> One comment confuses me. You wrote "Section 4.1 - It would be good to
>>>>> have an example with a software s
c already does).
>
> -- Mike
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Bradley [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:08 AM
> To: Phil Hunt
> Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback
adley [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 11:08 AM
To: Phil Hunt
Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
Telling the client the state of it's configuration is useful to the client if
the server "m
Oh, I should add that I disagree that it's not necessary to return the
>>>> software statement. It's a key part of the client registration
>>>> information, and so should be returned like the other client registration
>>>> information actually us
0:28 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Eve Maler; oauth@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
Phil
@independentid
www.independentid.com
phil.h...@oracle.com
On 2014-02-05, at 6:08 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Phil. I'm work
t;>> -- Mike
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:08 PM
>>> To: Phil Hunt; Eve Maler
>>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
To: Phil Hunt
Cc: oauth@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
I think it would be echoing back the software statement that was processed as
part of the request for consistency. Replying with a different software
statement is going to be too
ke the other client registration information
>> actually used.
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:08 PM
>> To:
ssage-
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:08 PM
> To: Phil Hunt; Eve Maler
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
>
> Thanks for your comments
t; Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 12:18 PM
> To: Eve Maler
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
>
> I am generally in agreement on the new drafts. Thanks Mike!
>
> Here are some comments:
>
> In the
--Original Message-
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:08 PM
To: Phil Hunt; Eve Maler
Cc: oauth@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
Thanks for your comments, Phil. I&#x
03, 2014 12:18 PM
To: Eve Maler
Cc: oauth@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
I am generally in agreement on the new drafts. Thanks Mike!
Here are some comments:
In the software statement section 3:
> If the authorization server determines t
al Message-
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:05 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
>
> Hi all,
>
> as you have seen from the me
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:05 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
Hi all,
as you have seen from the meeting minutes of our recent status chat it is time
to proceed with the dynamic c
Regarding glossary, I can take a shot unless Mike wants to first.
Phil
@independentid
www.independentid.com
phil.h...@oracle.com
On 2014-02-03, at 6:36 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> I still haven't done a deeply comprehensive read of the three posted drafts,
> but I'm pretty happy with what I've
I still haven't done a deeply comprehensive read of the three posted drafts,
but I'm pretty happy with what I've read so far. Implementors should note that
if you merge all three drafts together you get functionality that is compatible
with -14 (plus software statements).
Some comments inline
I am generally in agreement on the new drafts. Thanks Mike!
Here are some comments:
In the software statement section 3:
> If the authorization server determines that the claims in a software
>statement uniquely identify a piece of software, the same Client ID
>value MAY be returned for
Hi Hannes-- The UMA Core spec currently points directly to the basic dynamic
client reg doc with MAY statements, and is agnostic as to usage of the
higher-order functions. (These turn into optional interop feature tests.) So I
think it's fair to say that the split has no structural problems from
uth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:05 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Registration Plan: Your Feedback Needed!
Hi all,
as you have seen from the meeting minutes of our recent status chat it is time
to proceed with the dynamic
Hi all,
as you have seen from the meeting minutes of our recent status chat it
is time to proceed with the dynamic client registration work.
The earlier version of the dynamic client registration document was
split into three parts, namely
(1) the current working group draft containing only min
22 matches
Mail list logo
