IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OAUTH-WG] Future of PoP Work

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Wed, 19 October 2016 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA89126CD8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=3.599, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iw4SpZQ4_s-Q for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B151E1293E3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.91.151] ([12.177.140.245]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MTeVY-1cNMhI1Jjs-00QUUM for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:45:16 +0200
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Openpgp: id=071A97A9ECBADCA8E31E678554D9CEEF4D776BC9
Message-ID: <ef15c42a-e233-e148-4f38-ef7f75333c76@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:45:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J9kTS7xcxdUUvnW37JUS0rC0AjUF2I92r"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:56tuMU/k54YX/wrOUQSnDdNReWP3X8EKhSfMUQLTaJ/kQ3WHhMG ET+P1KGDsAWigpreEDsGFrPrcfZ9EwkIviR4B+2CHPOMU8RGB7wzt3c9oyMcYZzX60NhAlU ZUqXqXaArrh3Yc9x1S7qE9VUzRvnkOEJFd+g3Uu2wJ7ZjSxBhGUtVYf39OD6MLPLyWzAqe5 tqJSO0jf6l1HvRb4HkONg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:/8veOpZbsVY=:islIxmOnjildYDs2IwHzRC qfYG54bxPy7ZSdmbUxWSoQoO+2F8m12Mg7rvGGw6EaGiI0O6cn0rpSKoveZFFjeN606PRIFV/ 8cIio8pH7ZqbLG2UcMZGbBPoBwTMloyXSegjnvhHbI4QGshebZ2+zgH91goA68Cug7pTfeNKa p3V96zi6Xl+AVFTQllYXfIQOng2La1cxLfDCEou9pVEpUhYatOKAmMxArF5QWdQIv4W/mcnOm tmibJq6Z9h8JzVoxK7+xGt8hWZ0/vknNh5mzUJZ9ftCPdFWBv0aLBgJp1rUXPBRAEUAtqm8t1 g4ug9guIJygyUy9FvnZdsM1UNgfiwPkfvx1xVPbGOQD+kN33RBAlrE8yTsEOohfFjBZqHEgn9 J3PFLx+byB0Cv9qIgkc5gJqedNFO3IjM3Qits3z7+b6Wt6SDhHM7PawzI2leFhTDQNmo4dQ9I 59Cnpr65rVgrB1vt/S4XW+OaTv15MwU3cvjnFgFnGsrvq5Uwem+Vw3Lg2Hc0t11LTwC192nI9 Oy0b+NVf7BnwJLu6XGIUbVpjzTHWjYHCSUEd5tkRyf3ZXlkJCyOLN7AO91OYVnzaeZWq12edM oWfQkBiWWxV5WsVz1zR4Ws7QfrI4lY1yxnXhp70nIBS7+VMzj04l7JMEZewTaGkq2snvBZskf k7B7WJ/os/X93oKl6xcF2yN3kuUrdv7PjbrpHJ/Ikpajuh+LFAcJkmgvHzopHH06/N6TH7BBD L2rc1toKsUBuY+3PdpIDJcoQzG4PPV6ni604Bd7jxDEDoGjdK8VWRRfsCi8=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/bXd3UWV74Gzf4L6n484G9vZCtQ0>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Future of PoP Work
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 19 Oct 2016 18:45:21 -0000

Hi all,

two questions surfaced at the last IETF meeting, namely

1) Do we want to proceed with the symmetric implementation of PoP or,
alternatively, do we want to move it over to the ACE working group?

2) Do we want to continue the work on HTTP signing?

We would appreciate your input on these two questions.

Ciao
Hannes & Derek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email