u do a terrible good job as an
> editor. I just offered my opinion of why this WG is not as focused as you
> would expect it.
>
> regards,
> Torsten.
>
>
>> EHL
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailt
Brian,
I would like to start from your security considerations document. Do you have a
documented threat model (attackers, attacks, propabilities) motivating the
choosen counter-measures?
regards,
Torsten.
Am 05.08.2010 um 02:09 schrieb Brian Eaton :
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Torsten
[mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:05 AM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org); Brian Eaton
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>>
>>>
>>>> ideas. I still hope to get the di
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
wrote:
>> So far no one has offered to work on the security consideration section
>> (Brian's draft is too far from the format I need to incorporate).
>>
>
> I could work on this topic, if Brian does not insist to do so.
> @Brian: What do you th
August 04, 2010 10:05 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org); Brian Eaton
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>
> >
> >> ideas. I still hope to get the discovery spec finished in the same
> >> timeframe, but have no plans t
onday, August 02, 2010 1:20 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
What consensus do you refer to? The WG charter?
regards,
Torsten.
Am 02.08.2010 22:18, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav:
No according to WG consensus. We took it all o
> -Original Message-
> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:25 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>
> >
> > The main p
eneral discussions on the list and during the interim meeting.
>>
>> EHL
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net]
>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:20 PM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc:
> -Original Message-
> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 7:00 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>
> I'm fine with spe
0 PM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>>
>> What consensus do you refer to? The WG charter?
>>
>> regards,
>> Torsten.
>>
>> Am 02.08.2010 22:18, schrieb
dt.net]
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:20 PM
> > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
> >
> > What consensus do you refer to? The WG charter?
> >
> > regards,
> > Torst
so while it may be a WG item, it is not part of
> the
> core spes.
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:07 PM
> >>
-Original Message-
From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
and discovery does not belong into the core?
regards,
Torsten.
Am
2010 1:07 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>
> and discovery does not belong into the core?
>
> regards,
> Torsten.
>
> Am 02.08.2010 22:05, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav:
> > This
-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Torsten Lodderstedt
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:54 PM
To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
the existing authorization server endpoints (end-user authorization and
tokens endpoint) have a relat
st 02, 2010 12:54 PM
> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints
>
> the existing authorization server endpoints (end-user authorization and
> tokens endpoint) have a relatively clearly semantics and scope. Adding
> distinct new functions to
the existing authorization server endpoints (end-user authorization and
tokens endpoint) have a relatively clearly semantics and scope. Adding
distinct new functions to an authorization server will (in my opionion)
require the definition of new endpoints. For example, I'm working on an
I-D for
17 matches
Mail list logo
