Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF meeting requested

[Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>]

Hannes, Derek,

Would it possible to postpone presentation/discussion of the Dyn-Reg
draft (Dynamic Client Registration Protocol) to the Atlanta/November
IETF meeting?

The reason is that none of the proposers will be attending the
Vancouver IETF in-person.

Thanks.

/thomas/

__________________________________________


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
> Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: John Bradley
> Cc: [e-mail] WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF meeting
> requested
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have uploaded an agenda for the meeting.
> 
> I am assuming that all these items do not require discussion time
> anymore:
> * draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
> * draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer
> * draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns
> * draft-ietf-oauth-v2
> * draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer
> 
> Hence, we can focus on the new items. As discussed in the mail below
I
> put a separate slot for discussion of the holder-of-the-key/MAC
token
> security discussion on the agenda. I would suggest that a couple of
us
> meeting during the IETF week to work together on a presentation that
> provides some concrete suggestions for next steps to the rest of the
> group.
> 
> I also put the following persons on the spot for the presentations
of
> working group items:
> 
> - OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol (Thomas)
> - JSON Web Token (JWT) (Mike)
> - JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for OAuth 2.0 (Mike)
> - Token Revocation (Torsten)
> - SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Profiles for OAuth 2.0 (Brian)
> - OAuth Use Cases (Zachary)
> 
> Let me know if you want someone else to give the presentation.
> 
> As a preparation for the meeting it would be good if you could
> (a) identify the open issues with your document, and
> (b) find one or two reviewers to have a look at your document during
> the next two weeks.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> On Jul 15, 2012, at 5:59 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> 
> > Yes we need to get clearer on the the threats and use cases.
> >
> > I think Phil Hunt has some though there is likely overlap.
> >
> > Part of the problem with MAC was people never agreed on the
threats
> it was mitigating.
> >
> > I can present something or coordinate with Tony or Phil.
> >
> > John B.
> >
> > On 2012-07-14, at 9:36 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> >
> >> How about a few min on proof-of-possession requirements? I can
> present our use cases and requirements
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Mike Jones
> >> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:42 PM
> >> To: Hannes Tschofenig; [e-mail] WG
> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF
meeting
> requested
> >>
> >> I'm willing to do 5 minutes on the status of the Core and Bearer
> documents.
> >>
> >> I'm willing to give an update on JWT and the JWT Bearer -
probably
> 15 minutes.  It's probably good that we're a day after the JOSE WG
> meeting, given the JWT dependency upon the JOSE specs.
> >>
> >> I'm willing to be part of a discussion on the Assertions draft,
but
> would appreciate doing this with Brian and/or Chuck - I'm guessing
15
> minutes for that as well.  (I'm not certain this will be needed, but
> I'd like to review the recent changes before saying that it's not.)
> >>
> >> Looking forward to seeing many of you in Vancouver!
> >>
> >> 				-- Mike
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 12:46 AM
> >> To: [e-mail] WG
> >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting slot for the Vancouver IETF meeting
> requested
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have requested a 2,5 hour slot for the upcoming meeting.
> >>
> >> While the next meeting is still a bit away it is nevertheless
useful
> to hear
> >> * whether you plan to attend the next meeting, and
> >> * whether you want to present something.
> >>
> >> I could imagine that these documents will be discussed:
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-revocation
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-use-cases
> >>
> >> To the draft authors of these docuemnts: Please think about the
open
> issues and drop a mail to the list so that we make some progress
> already before the face-to-face meeting.
> >>
> >> I am assume that the following documents do not require any
> discussion time at the upcoming IETF meeting anymore:
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-v2
> >> * draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth