Re: [OAUTH-WG] SAML Assertion Draft Items [Item 1: client auth]

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]>]

Sounds reasonable. Can you provide a schedule outline?

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:53 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] SAML Assertion Draft Items [Item 1: client auth]
> 
> Thanks for the response, Eran. I'm breaking this thread up into the distinct
> issues.  Reply inline below to the first item about client auth.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > However, the SAML draft does not currently cover SAML for client
> > > authentication and profiling draft-ietf-oauth-assertions would
> > > suggest that it should.  Is there any general consensus as to if
> > > SAML should be profiled as a client authentication method?  It is
> > > certainly feasible but might require restructuring and retitling the draft.
> >
> > Are there use cases pending such functionality today? It would be a shame
> to delay an otherwise useful draft when the functionality can be added later.
> 
> I don't have any such use cases in the near future.  Perhaps others can speak
> up? I personally see assertion based grants as being more important and
> more immediately useful.  That was one of the reasons I was looking to keep
> assertion grants and client assertion authentication separate.  That said,
> Chuck has done a nice job with his general treatment of them together in
> draft-ietf-oauth-assertions and the logical thing to do, in terms of how the
> various documents play together, would be to have draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-
> bearer cover client auth now too.