IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-spop naming

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Wed, 12 November 2014 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CF81A8AEF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 uKADbE-3Bfvz for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog116.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog116.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF16A1A0056 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob116.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVGORVW03QcMlvPqULflDoPqL2HJV6HuF@postini.com; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:53 PST
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rp18so13891833iec.40 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:53 -0800 (PST)
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=jqE1F+nnH3oXx3nIw9t04DzwbHNrKEG08q1nL9++GJw=; b=M/wE4smUqGVskgTZZ+yqZYfbFPs9Q3UhUI0pCJKm4Dn8B2vAyKqdvC77F5zoPC1KxE GweVLcDnnyK9PbYgCT3zcEbtSOW1dhuj1c2PEK8ex9nUas/vyRxizGD0TcWrl7vKFHp9 O4j8hVECLy14XPIKP4fLa8T7CehB2QS8DGasA767uSP1s94r2F2Z7qGTr6NnvasBBOGu NvDLplfhAWu5D2zjuBpNYAe9d6gRybiuPf9gvgj0nCRXdJ1ivWc5uQXDhX1CeP3MgfQw 8P4P9l+JOSw8URG95YjNsh26NcBKoBc/HtSF4cMo+OX9kjcjmEjY10dhMafok/uoBTQv VD3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlagPBkDz2YYQpqCHkjmiuWQGBI3tPhUmhgMmzhbHfGMngYOa5+/VtSHEtva6vedxl8YnrkmeUNjYILL679QXLds+Cep6D66rPDUnFjrSzvwMxDQMU6VmYDmNLUh1NOQtniQX7P
X-Received: by 10.50.138.76 with SMTP id qo12mr41471221igb.43.1415811413143; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.138.76 with SMTP id qo12mr41471204igb.43.1415811413010; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.28.15 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:56:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <963021236.119829.1415810818523.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10669.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <963021236.119829.1415810818523.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10669.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:56:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTx-HsL58C1_L2_MmnP5HkCzLpzWwVJbF9bpcW0Wj=MEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134b96457bd0f0507ac487d"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/6sKKRcv-TDDGucMAYmHn3w_gJkA
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-spop naming
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:56:56 -0000

I agree that changing the name could avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion
(and said as much in Sept
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13361.html).


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Any progress on naming on this thing?   Didn't see any reply to my
> previous comment, but that might have been because I replied to the -02
> publication notice and it might have gotten filtered.
>
> Similarly, the question of extending the error registry to allow the
> server tofeed back a failure if the server's required hash method isn't
> sent.  Also may need a way to advertise what hash method is required.
>
> Regards,
>
> -bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email