IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: 'username' parameter proposal

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
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 596BB3A67D3 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 CpGkNsGeePeQ for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D06A828C1AA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17146 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2010 18:16:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 20 Apr 2010 18:16:26 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:16:16 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:16:23 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: 'username' parameter proposal
Thread-Index: Acrgs9m9P4b44bKcQYu/5b5WmmQKtgAAbR7Q
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F585@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <r2pc8689b661004190833tf46085bayb92b840acf080bb4@mail.gmail.com> <C7F1C6AC.327EE%eran@hueniverse.com> <u2jc8689b661004191006hc3c7fb3eid09feafd57d2fd8a@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F163@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <o2wc8689b661004191716o69966d5di900c07737d3be568@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F45A@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <z2xc334d54e1004200936s57f06dedt8e0e46df3480f8d4@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F533@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <s2odaf5b9571004201103w17ade392j91727ced1dc39072@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <s2odaf5b9571004201103w17ade392j91727ced1dc39072@mail.gmail.com>
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
Cc: "jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org" <jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: 'username' parameter proposal
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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:17:15 -0000

Is that an objection to including a username parameter in the spec?

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Eaton [mailto:beaton@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:04 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org; OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: 'username' parameter proposal
> 
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > I'm not aware of anyone arguing against this feature. The only issue
> > is a full security review before we add it to the spec. If one of the
> > security experts here can spend a few minutes to review this, we can
> > move forward and add it to the draft.
> 
> I'd like to see some solutions mature in the wild.  Once we figure out best
> practices in the real world, it'll be a lot easier to put good policy on paper.
> 
> I just don't think we have a solid answer, and I don't want something ending
> up in the spec that we will regret later.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email