[Openid-specs-ab] Draft note to IETF

[Brian Campbell]

While somewhat esoteric, it's probably important in this context to be
accurate about the various documents and the WGs that are responsible for
them.

Though JWT does depend heavily on JOSE work, it itself isn't a JOSE WG
item.  Rather it is a product of the OAUTH WG and, as such, asking the JOSE
WG to do anything with JWT doesn't make a lot of sense.

The broader issue remains though and I support the Connect  group
providing some
encouragement to the IETF towards progressing the dependencies. But we
probably need to acknowledge that even within the IETF the document and WG
relationships are somewhat complicated by dependencies.




On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Tim Bray <tbray at textuality.com> wrote:

> This should go to the JOSE WG chair, the ADs for that area, and the IESG
>
> I’m writing on behalf of the OpenID Connect Working Group, in the OpenID
> Foundation.  We have been working for <insert-time-period> on specifying
> this identity-federation protocol. Our specifications have reached
> stability (what we call “implementor’s draft”) and we anticipate a final
> vote and approval in the coming months.  We’re confident approval will be
> forthcoming since OIDC is already in production at Google,
> <insert-other-deployments> and we expect deployments at
> <insert-other-predictions>.
>
> Our work is dependent on JWT, a product of the IETF “jose” working group.
>  JWTs have been stable for some time, and code to parse and validate them
> is widely available in libraries for popular programming languages.
>  However, progress towards an RFC in jose seems slow, and we do not have a
> feeling when this work is likely to stabilize.
>
> Unfortunately, it’s not practical for our membership to wait, and thus our
> most likely course of action will be to take a dependency
> on draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-08 when the time comes to publish our
> specification.
>
> We bring this to your attention simply because if some other organization
> were planning to lock in a dependency on one of our earlier drafts, we’d
> like to hear about it.
>
> [I’m going to unofficially run this by some of my IETF-insider contacts,
> but thought I should sanity-check the content here first]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130613/79df2b54/attachment.html>