Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Token on-behalf of Use case

I'm just catching up on this tread, but would appreciate an in-room
discussion on this topic that doesn't assume the adopted draft has the
agreed upon approach as I am not reading that there is consensus on that
approach in this thread at all.

Could we see presentations on Mike's draft and Brian's?  Justin, do you
agree that Brian's draft covers the use case in our draft as was implied in
this thread?

I'd like to see a discussion guided by the chairs to see if we can find a
go-forward plan.  There seems to be differing opinions and maybe a pull
towards simpler approaches that extend Oauth.

Thank you.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:

> Speaking as someone who is reasonably familiar with Kerberos and the
> general concepts involved, I find both Microsoft/Kerberos technology
> ((constrained delegation/protocol transition) and the ws-trust text
> horribly confusing and would recommend against all of the above as
> examples of clarity.
> After several years I've finally gotten to a point where I understand
> the Kerberos terms, but that's simply by using them regularly, not
> because there was clarity.
>
>
> This may be a case where new terminology is worthwhile if you can find
> something that multiple people (especially new readers not overly
> familiar with the concepts) find to be clear.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen