Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering

Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU> Mon, 13 September 2010 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hardjono@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257AD3A6A9C for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.705
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3WlZJCnTcW73 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-7.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E4E3A69F7 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074424-b7b2bae000005b3f-c9-4c8e6c2b241b
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 7C.70.23359.B2C6E8C4; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:23:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.15]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id o8DIO44r010063; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:24:05 -0400
Received: from oc11exedge2.exchange.mit.edu (OC11EXEDGE2.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.9.3.18]) ) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id o8DIO33k017219; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:24:04 -0400
Received: from w92exhub10.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.18) by oc11exedge2.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:23:43 -0400
Received: from EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.15]) by w92exhub10.exchange.mit.edu ([18.7.73.18]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:24:04 -0400
From: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:24:02 -0400
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
Thread-Index: ActSDXLCY/7nmxxRSviAXPVuVG0mSQBYnVgw
Message-ID: <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD01C353D2E2@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
References: <4C8C17F9.9050908@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C8C17F9.9050908@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:23:41 -0000

Hannes,

I strongly believe that SAML support in Outh2.0 and "SAML-interoperability" is crucial in getting Oauth accepted and deployed in high-assurance (high-value) environments (eg. government, financials).

As such, if its ok with Brian, I would be willing to either co-author or review the SAML-related drafts.


ps. Apologies for stating the obvious, but I think the new charter/recharter should define clearly what is expected as deliverable(s) from the OAUTH WG in regards to SAML support.

Thanks.

/thomas/

__________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 8:00 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> at the Washington Internet Identity Workshop we had the chance to chat
> about OAuth. Given the progress on the main specification we should
> discuss WG re-chartering.
> 
> The following items had been proposed at the meeting:
> 
> * Messaging Signing
> Example: http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/oauth/current/msg04250.html
> 
> * User Experience Extensions
> Example: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-recordon-oauth-v2-ux/
> 
> * Artifact Binding
> Example: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl/
> 
> * SAML for OAuth
> Example: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-oauth-saml/
> 
> * Recommendations of commonly used Scope values No draft available (to
> my knowledge)
> 
> * Dynamic Client Registration
> Example: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-oauth-dyn-reg-v1-00.txt
> 
> I am interested to hear
> a) what items are important for you; we cannot work on everything at
> the same time.
> b) what items are you willing to co-author (requires a hard time
> commitment)
> c) what items are you willing to review
> d) whether we should consider other items?
> 
> Btw, to have your work considered you have to submit an IETF draft.
> Please use the Web tool to upload it:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi
> Also use the following filename convention:
> draft-[author last name]-oauth-[some short name]-[version#].txt
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth