IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Document Management Issue (Signatures)

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 28 September 2010 04:42 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 858263A6918 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.492
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 meSKEwXp4kRb for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CF9DE3A6C30 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 824 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2010 04:42:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 28 Sep 2010 04:42:47 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:42:48 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Lukas Rosenstock <lr@lukasrosenstock.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:42:52 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Document Management Issue (Signatures)
Thread-Index: ActejPaEa2GxTh9KSfmVuA3qtdceCgAOoVbA
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB5B3@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45031BA596@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <DB4FC8C2-816C-4527-8EC4-BC22B171B34C@oracle.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB374@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTim-5hYzBqzXYK=qZaK3HXiLyzE5XqFAJuPCYo5S@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim-5hYzBqzXYK=qZaK3HXiLyzE5XqFAJuPCYo5S@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB5B3P3PW5EX1MB01E_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Document Management Issue (Signatures)
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, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:13 -0000

Maybe, but that's something we actually have wide consensus that is not needed. The current draft replaces signatures for obtaining an access token using other means.

EHL

From: Lukas Rosenstock [mailto:lr@lukasrosenstock.net]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 2:43 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Document Management Issue (Signatures)


2010/9/27 Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com<mailto:eran@hueniverse.com>>
I would also be happy with the core only dealing with *getting* a token, and moving all text about *using* a token to other documents. This will produce three parts:


1.       Getting a document

2.       Using bearer tokens

3.       Using cryptographic tokens

Won't there be any scenarios in which signatures are required for getting a token, like in OAuth 1 (the request is signed with the client id/secret)?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email