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

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
s/our/your/ :-)

>
> 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
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen