Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 14 June 2011 05:20 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
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 6CCC911E8294 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Xlh+H19F9jm for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B699711E8292 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so4537832gxk.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q10hSb66x6KAWdCPwDx9mj4tPPL7KJiWfybBHkz9ZAw=; b=RhSQdxGerOMwvQmSngr9o9soVjtO02HA3PxsWy1yar5mmkZWtGVl5rGZtKWK+Jm9Dt gdMgNkFMCCN3Io7+iZ47OAQu8gxqJ/fJgCeKZr52GP3VQWHx+9ZKsPQF68DT5USmRpBE uaC/xBUPtVSKUk/+D0AqKOS/0EcK1mZy8KdZo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=fP9ZnfyYXFBbCTmrLZLnn1LF7Z5tzW6ckka/ZAf69G95MZ0yr1iFenhkQOAg6tJ2x6 ye+MMgC8izKJ5MIrLdOdKW9yfnv6/qOWpv9H2SK5lXYe5Av2reLlpg/5efpM14YnTFRn pS6abAhxBJUFmBABkQsbv3kQdztnMquJVca9Y=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.168.99 with SMTP id j63mr6065439yhl.117.1308028848918; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.113.3 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DF6EC1F.4020703@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <DDDF3DB6-03F5-464B-92F1-14F059C97A6D@mac.com> <4DF3198C.8080901@lodderstedt.net> <BANLkTinzzPA1ue9MdxpZDxvWqGXSgMQ4Vg@mail.gmail.com> <4DF6EC1F.4020703@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:20:48 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9VvsTLLMmX6YRy6RLEnYb98lsYk
Message-ID: <BANLkTinintqUcUH4mq6Gb8tHQq_xRxvAZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:20:50 -0000
> I think there has been a confusion. I also thought that the rechartering > was to be discussed at the July meeting; the IETF call for rechartering was > issued on May 31. Right, and that call was not for discussion of rechartering, but for a review of the specific proposed charter. The charter that we discussed here was sent out for internal review on 31 May, and was approved by the IESG last Thursday -- that should be officially announced any time now. That charter, if you recall, was very focused and included milestones for submitting OAuth 2.0, bearer tokens, and MAC auth to the IESG in July and August, and discussion of rechartering again, for further work, in October. We won't be discussing rechartering in Québec, unless we've finished those three documents already. That seems unlikely. But if we can do it, tant mieux. Barry
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Barry Leiba
- [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Paul Tarjan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Shane B Weeden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed OAuth Extensions Stephen Farrell
- [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens William J. Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens William J. Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] issuing multiple tokens Torsten Lodderstedt