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

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Not before the submission deadline tomorrow.  Probably sometime before
submissions reopen.

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.
>