Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 15 September 2010 05:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 32F9A3A68A2 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gf5DEy1Bsdr6 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21AA3A6767 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAEr5j0xAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACDG55UcagtiXySDYEigyt0BIosiw0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,369,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="159392304"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2010 05:40:56 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp1000.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp1000.cisco.com [10.61.67.232]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8F5etGj013671; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 05:40:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4C905C76.1090400@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:41:10 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>
References: <4C8C17F9.9050908@gmx.net> <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD01C353D2E2@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD01C353D2E2@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
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: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 05:40:35 -0000

On 9/13/10 8:24 PM, Thomas Hardjono wrote:
> Hannes,
>
> I strongly believe that SAML support in Outh2.0 and "SAML-interoperability" is crucial in getting Oauth accepted and deployed in high-assurance (high-value) environments (eg. government, financials).
+1.
> As such, if its ok with Brian, I would be willing to either co-author or review the SAML-related drafts.

Would review.

>
> ps. Apologies for stating the obvious, but I think the new charter/recharter should define clearly what is expected as deliverable(s) from the OAUTH WG in regards to SAML support.

+1