IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] Offline operation of Resource Server

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 15 July 2014 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBD71B28BD for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4adMPKnnsuL for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1B6B1A0A8A for <ace@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3609B20029; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C4CA963B0E; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B207163AED; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <53C4E7DA.2020003@gmx.net>
References: <53C3C09A.5090707@gmx.net> <14018.1405360899@sandelman.ca> <53C42703.4060806@gmx.net> <8236.1405368736@sandelman.ca> <53C4E7DA.2020003@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:29:56 -0400
Message-ID: <18716.1405438196@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/0zS3fd2SQU0tlH9V_hm42POsXrk
Cc: "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Offline operation of Resource Server
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:30:32 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
    > This is pretty much reflected in the list of questions I asked to the
    > group, namely:

    > "
    > Are there requirements/use cases that allow anything other than the
    > OAuth/Kerberos design pattern?
    > "

I wasn't arguing with you, but with others, I guess. Sorry.
I think that your question is not well stated.

"allow anything other" -- has a bunch of implicit negations, I'm not actually
sure how many, to be honest.

There are use cases that can only be satisified by the OAuth/Kerberos design
pattern.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status