Return-Path: X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407911A01F8 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 S56mKLJVJtpj for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x22e.google.com (mail-ve0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B837B1A0203 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id oz11so914951veb.33 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=SvOljOaYPsnYJ5UJjsU3YWth77S6B0z3vWZ2lFM7+o8=; b=J9Lu1Eba6MwOkYtw+3c56j36agC8oNEoESoJjnZIdrA+FofXS7Cw8ecnpO8wOFPnpW 1i/LBr1wsPZWxxDdlXfDa4IF/OvL9dmU3MNz0qFGQX/InsGTmBuTk9WgcyGUu7fnXvg+ regaVdZQjWgZlrM3ZAGgraEGUHNHMhUEK2wmGwdq3ByQgjZlk+4BPchGaNDokEO6nUuM Cza9oV/jDSfiTa/UjkRNa3k8u1DerMUL1yKwfDIEDHAaf2Gwhji72arxegD6F6REi2lS 8r0eHUzxnRbuBoYgI/YHKHga+/SfG99ImzjJ5DmfA97Io4uGC8fNyBikq6xHvgrpwKk3 DSFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=SvOljOaYPsnYJ5UJjsU3YWth77S6B0z3vWZ2lFM7+o8=; b=L/um7xP/PEkgzUPrYueg0xQZSuJub3WacF/Giq041gBzvjVRfrCPw0sjFbtlV5vTfn dF42su6ECnFAJWFnQEYm1fSJhSwxAV70oOR5a/ycApeUvCevpcLxVTmNvFnfIvC7bkEF heYz1+YCJwjrSKOVwbvYzNwwE/RnH3CuCVEVBauWYmXvg/ER4WKOnU3bP6rUz/70xVJn CHmBXp6y6+W6E8OY1cZzY8mO3dHxrlNjdbi09qQEZZd3UsKJIW93CEfKULYk9qbTY5yc 2I6ZXedxsA+uUYm9ZO32B3g2myrARPQssTY2sfJPxvhllh/vWg66eYQu+ot4PWo6P8p1 tUbA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlIpBnd4Uh9xPE8Cu6N27C6BvcBncJn3/gG5hIEGM17GayUwpBGiRNkH5rlA4fpQO60GLPzeZ3sS1Vp13NyIFi0whuab+TTvKTaMuA/Uc1uciIWigiud/qQO9h4Up8SOpuDStHZpt6g2tzKuxOaPKJL16xZimBNeVlRdD/Xubqy36YyzDZoZTyEXC/hOKqhbD9BDfKP X-Received: by 10.220.88.204 with SMTP id b12mr55724373vcm.3.1395767911287; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.74.168 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1395691613.66133.YahooMailNeo@web142803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <53308872.9030305@cs.tcd.ie> <533088AB.203@cs.tcd.ie> <1395691613.66133.YahooMailNeo@web142803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?SmFtaWUgTmljb2xzb24gKOWAquW/l+aYjik=?= Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:18:00 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bill Mills Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a92ee8ab34304f5718a57 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/oTLwDJOXU6urlhH8LpjQtPdhc_o Cc: "kitten@ietf.org" , "iana-questions@ietf.corg" , "oauth@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [kitten] [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #731918] SASL mechanism not listed X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:18:40 -0000 --047d7b3a92ee8ab34304f5718a57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To be clear, Google will continue to support XOAUTH and XOAUTH2 for some time, along with OAUTHBEARER, in order to support existing clients. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bill Mills wrote: > Google used XOAUTH for it's original OAuth 1.0a based mechanism. They > used XOAUTH2 to specifically not conflict with whatever name we > standardized on for the mechanism as standardized. > > They plan, according to Ryan who's been participating on list, to > implement the standardized mechanism definition under the OAUTHBEARER > mechanism name so there should be no conflict. > > Regards, > > -bill > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 12:34 PM, Stephen Farrell < > stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > See below. I think (not quite sure) that this is better > discussed on the kitten list. > > Ta, > S. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [kitten] [IANA #731918] SASL mechanism not listed > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:33:06 +0000 > From: Stephen Farrell > To: kitten@ietf.org > CC: iana-questions@iana.org > > > Hiya, > > IANA were asked the following question a while back, but I > dropped the ball;-) > > I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I'm not quite > sure which registries are meant exactly though. > > (I'll also forward to the oauth WG, but not cross-post) > > Thanks, > S. > > > > The following draft describes a SASL mechanism that is in use on > GMail and should not therefore be allocated to another scheme unless > we want bad things to happen. > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-murchison-sasl-login-00.txt > > The strings XOAUTH and XOAUTH2 are also being used for a preliminary > version of the OAUTH spec as well. > > The reason Google is using this particular mechanism rather than > PLAIN is that it is the one that has the widest client support: > > http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/smtpauth.html > > So it would be a real disaster if this particular code point was re-issued. > > It would probably be a good idea if every registry had a list of 'dirty' > code points that must not be reused because there are existing > applications. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kitten mailing list > Kitten@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Kitten mailing list > Kitten@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten > > --047d7b3a92ee8ab34304f5718a57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To be clear, Google will continue to support XOAUTH and XO= AUTH2 for some time, along with OAUTHBEARER, in order to support existing c= lients.


= On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com= > wrote:
Google used XOAUTH for it's original OAuth 1.0a based mechanism. = =C2=A0They used XOAUTH2 to specifically not conflict with whatever name we = standardized on for the mechanism as standardized.

They plan, according to= Ryan who's been participating on list, to implement the standardized m= echanism definition under the OAUTHBEARER mechanism name so there should be= no conflict.

Regards,

-bill


On Monday, March 24, 2014 12:34 PM= , Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

See below. I think (not quite sure) that this is better
d= iscussed on the kitten list.

Ta,
S.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [kitten] [IAN= A #731918] SASL mechanism not listed
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 20= 14 19:33:06 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.fa= rrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: kit= ten@ietf.org <kitten@ietf.org>
CC: iana-questions= @iana.org <iana-questions@iana.org>


Hiya,

IANA were asked the following question a while back, but I
dropped the ball;-)

I'd = appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I'm not quite
sure which registries are meant exactly though.

(I'll also forward to the oauth WG, but not cross-post)

Tha= nks,
S.

<start>= ;

The following draft describes a SASL= mechanism that is in use on
GMail and should not therefore be allocated to another scheme unless
we want bad things to happen.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-murchison-s= asl-login-00.txt

The strings XOAUTH and XOAUTH2 are also being used for a= preliminary
version of the OAUTH spec as well.

The reason Google is using this particular mec= hanism rather than
PLAIN is that it is the one that has the widest client support:

http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/smtpauth.ht= ml

So it would be a real disaster if this particular code p= oint was re-issued.

It would probably = be a good idea if every registry had a list of 'dirty'
code points that must not be reused because there are existing applications= .

<end>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten@= ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/= listinfo/kitten





___________________________________________= ____
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth




_____= __________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten


--047d7b3a92ee8ab34304f5718a57--