Re: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Fri, 18 March 2011 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D343A696C for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KI+9VUPYdX7e for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A823A67EE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:35:23 -0700
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (157.54.51.114) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.2; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:35:23 -0700
Received: from mail24-ch1-R.bigfish.com (216.32.181.168) by CH1EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.43.70.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.8; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:22 +0000
Received: from mail24-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail24-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DEC7C802F9 for <oauth@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -41
X-BigFish: PS-41(zz542N1432N9371PzzdafM1202h1082kzz1033IL8275eh8275dha1495iz31h2a8h668h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:SKI; H:SN1PRD0302HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail24-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail24-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1300415721810393_3911; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.245]) by mail24-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B6210B004E; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from SN1PRD0302HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (65.55.94.9) by CH1EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (10.43.70.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:21 +0000
Received: from SN1PRD0302MB097.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.208]) by SN1PRD0302HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.14.149.46]) with mapi id 14.01.0225.027; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:20 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal
Thread-Index: AQHL5NFBdQUZ9sYZYkucSI2AqplAT5Qx3X2ggAACdYCAAAGZwIAAQLQQgAA9TJA=
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:35:19 +0000
Message-ID: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E70B6BBB01@SN1PRD0302MB097.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <4D825300.3060005@gmx.net> <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E70B6B2520@SN1PRD0302MB100.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234464F4328A9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E70B6B99FF@SN1PRD0302MB097.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234464F432958@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234464F432958@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [50.46.124.183]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN1PRD0302HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%HUENIVERSE.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%GMX.NET$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 02:33:56 -0000

You need to chill a little instead of just jumping on people w/o understanding. First I did not say that I wanted to discuss a general discovery mechanism, as my example was limited to OAuth usage not the generic case.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal

This proposal goes far beyond just solving any discovery needs for OAuth. It also directly competes with existing (deployed) proposals. This group is not the right forum to discuss and design a generally applicable discovery solution for the web. Once discovery is added to our charter (any discovery is currently out of scope), we can figure out if there are existing solutions to utilize, if we want to create a specialized solution for OAuth, or if a general purpose solution is needed (and does not already exist in a published standard).

If a general purpose solution is the direction to go, this is not the venue to develop it.

So again, presenting this at the meeting is fine, but beyond that, this working group is not chartered nor equipped to develop this technology for general purpose. In addition, the right way to present SWD to this WG is via an example of how OAuth might be using it, and not any direct discussion of the merits of the actual proposal - that belongs on the Apps-discuss list until another forum is identified or created.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:41 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal
> 
> I think it does for example how one might discover the authorization 
> service and this would be a forum to see if others also do or not.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:56 AM
> To: Anthony Nadalin; Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal
> 
> Re: draft-jones-simple-web-discovery
> 
> While I don't have an objections to this document being presented and 
> discussed at the meeting, I want to point that this has absolutely 
> nothing to do with this working group and if the IETF community has an 
> interest in pursuing it, it does not belong in this working group.
> 
> EHL
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin
> > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:54 AM
> > To: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal
> >
> > Is it possible to add these to the mix?
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-simple-web-discovery-00.txt
> >
> > and also the
> > http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-
> > 00.txt
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:29 AM
> > To: oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Agenda Proposal
> >
> > Open Authentication Protocol WG
> > ==============================-
> >
> > FRIDAY, April 1, 2011
> > Vienna/Madrid Room
> >
> > Chairs: Hannes Tschofenig/Blaine Cook
> >
> > Agenda
> > ------
> >
> > 1) Agenda Bashing (Chairs)
> >
> > 2) Discussion of Working Group Last Call Comments (Chairs/Mike 
> > Jones) http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-v2/
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer/
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer/
> >
> > 3) OAuth Security (Thorsten)
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-security/
> >
> > 4) OAuth JSON Encoding (Mike Jones)
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-token-01
> >
> > 5) OAuth Use Cases (Zachary Zeltsan) 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zeltsan-oauth-use-cases/
> >
> > 6) Re-Chartering Discussion (Chairs)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> 
>