Re: [OAUTH-WG] Weekly github digest (OAuth Activity Summary)

[Aaron Parecki <[e-mail]>]

Happy Monday! I just added several OAuth GitHub repos to the IETF tools
that send out this weekly digest about activity on GitHub. I hope this
helps everyone become more aware of the activity in the group. If you have
an adopted draft on GitHub that isn't part of this list, get in touch with
me and we can get it added too. Thanks!

Aaron


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 11:40 PM Repository Activity Summary Bot
<do_not_reply=[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sunday February 04, 2024
>
> Events without label "editorial"
> Issues oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining (+0/-4/💬5)
>
> 5 issues received 5 new comments:
>
>    - #69 Add Aaron Parecki to acknowledgements section
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/69> (1 by
>    bc-pi)
>    - #67 Change spec name to focus on Authz
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/67> (1 by
>    bc-pi)
>    - #61 authorization grant type can't be the same as the issued token
>    type <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/61>
>    (1 by bc-pi)
>    - #60 example response missing issued_token_type
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/60> (1 by
>    bc-pi)
>    - #45 Consider limiting token formats to JWT
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/45> (1 by
>    bc-pi)
>
> 4 issues closed:
>
>    - #69 Add Aaron Parecki to acknowledgements section
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/69>
>    - #61 authorization grant type can't be the same as the issued token
>    type <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/61>
>    - #60 example response missing issued_token_type
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/60>
>    - #45 Consider limiting token formats to JWT
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/issues/45>
>
> oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens (+2/-11/💬22)
>
> 2 issues created:
>
>    - #69 Do we still need replacement transaction tokens.
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/69> (by
>    PieterKas)
>    - #66 Trust domain/audience claim format URI or StringOrUri?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/66> (by
>    obfuscoder)
>
> 9 issues received 22 new comments:
>
>    - #69 Do we still need replacement transaction tokens.
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/69> (1 by
>    PieterKas)
>    - #63 audience REQUIRED for just one trust domain?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/63> (4 by
>    gffletch, obfuscoder, tulshi)
>    - #62 Long-living Access Token needed for internal batch
>    processes/offline tasks?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/62> (4 by
>    gffletch, obfuscoder, tulshi)
>    - #58 Authorization details presentation and processing
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/58> (1 by
>    tulshi) PR57
>    - #56 RFC 9493 and sub_id formats
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/56> (3 by
>    obfuscoder, tulshi) PR57
>    - #53 Transaction Tokens for S2S calls
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/53> (5 by
>    dteleguin, obfuscoder, tulshi)
>    - #52 Should the azd claim be mandatory or optional
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/52> (1 by
>    tulshi) pre-adoption
>    - #35 How do internal services authorize the Transaction Tokens?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/35> (2 by
>    obfuscoder, tulshi)
>    - #21 Txt token Header
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/21> (1 by
>    obfuscoder)
>
> 11 issues closed:
>
>    - #66 Trust domain/audience claim format URI or StringOrUri?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/66>
>    - #63 audience REQUIRED for just one trust domain?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/63>
>    - #48 "sender constrained" language needs improvement
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/48>
>    - #21 Txt token Header
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/21>
>    - #35 How do internal services authorize the Transaction Tokens?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/35>
>    - #56 RFC 9493 and sub_id formats
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/56> PR57
>    - #52 Should the azd claim be mandatory or optional
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/52>
>    pre-adoption
>    - #58 Authorization details presentation and processing
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/58> PR57
>    - #60 Use of `actor_token` and `actor_token_type`
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/60> PR57
>    - #61 How is the `purp` claim of the Txn-Token defined?
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/61> PR57
>    - #49 Using Txn-Tokens securely
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/49>
>    pre-adoption
>
> oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc (+1/-0/💬3)
>
> 1 issues created:
>
>    - #203 metadata path description
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/issues/203> (by c2bo)
>
> 1 issues received 3 new comments:
>
>    - #203 metadata path description
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/issues/203> (3 by bc-pi)
>
> Pull requests oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining (+3/-4/💬1)
>
> 3 pull requests submitted:
>
>    - #74 use more specific term "JWT authorization grant"
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/74> (by
>    aaronpk)
>    - #73 Renamed the "Authorization Grant" header to "Access Token
>    Request" <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/73>
>    (by aaronpk)
>    - #72 limit authorization grant format to RFC7523 JWT
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/72> (by
>    bc-pi)
>
> 1 pull requests received 1 new comments:
>
>    - #73 Renamed the "Authorization Grant" header to "Access Token
>    Request" <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/73>
>    (1 by aaronpk)
>
> 4 pull requests merged:
>
>    - #74 use more specific term "JWT authorization grant"
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/74>
>    - #73 More specific headers
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/73>
>    - #71 Added acknowledgement for Aaron Parecki
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/71>
>    - #72 limit authorization grant format to RFC7523 JWT
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining/pull/72>
>
> oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens (+4/-5/💬0)
>
> 4 pull requests submitted:
>
>    - #70 clarified that aud claim should have the same format as in the
>    JWT spec <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/70>
>    (by tulshi)
>    - #68 removed sender constrained text as discussed on 12/08
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/68> (by
>    tulshi)
>    - #67 Clarify and align audience claim value format
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/67> (by
>    obfuscoder)
>    - #65 updated HTTP reference
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/65> (by
>    tulshi)
>
> 5 pull requests merged:
>
>    - #70 clarified that aud claim should have the same format as in the
>    JWT spec <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/70>
>    - #68 removed sender constrained text as discussed on 12/08
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/68>
>    - #65 updated HTTP reference
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/65>
>    - #57 Token exchange profile update
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/57>
>    - #64 Add header
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/64>
>
> oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc (+1/-0/💬0)
>
> 1 pull requests submitted:
>
>    - #204 Fix inconstancy in the well-known path construction
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc/pull/204> (by bc-pi)
>
> oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata (+0/-1/💬0)
>
> 1 pull requests merged:
>
>    - #22 fix bearer_methods_supported
>    <https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata/pull/22>
>
> Repositories tracked by this digest:
>
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-browser-based-apps
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-identity-chaining
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-sd-jwt-vc
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-cross-device-security
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-v2-1
>    - https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-browser-based-apps
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>