[WG-UMA] For email and Oct 9 discussion/closure: start_at for permission validity periods (issue 94)

Maciej Machulak maciej.machulak at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 19:10:18 CDT 2014


Hi all,

As promised during the call, I am commenting on the issue so that we can
progress with resolving it. I am in favour of having the start_at parameter
in the response, and in favour of this parameter being optional. Probably
the spec should clearly state the difference between start_at and
issued_at, though.

Cheers,
Maciej

On 7 October 2014 17:08, Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com> wrote:

> https://github.com/xmlgrrl/UMA-Specifications/issues/94
>
> This also came up in the context of the RPT issuance discussion, though I
> think we got a little tangled up because RPTs themselves don't have
> explicit validity periods -- only their interior parts (in the "bearer"
> token profile, at least) do. There has been a fair amount of support
> expressed on the list for doing this. Would someone (maybe Sal?...) like to
> propose some concrete spec wording, based on the wording we already have
> for when the validity ends?
>
>         Eve
>
> Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> +1 425 345 6756                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>
> _______________________________________________
> WG-UMA mailing list
> WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
>



-- 
Maciej Machulak
email: maciej.machulak at gmail.com
mobile: +44 7999 606 767 (UK)
mobile: +48 602 45 31 66 (PL)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-uma/attachments/20141016/8af5f5d2/attachment.html>


More information about the WG-UMA mailing list