IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal: OAuth 1.0 signature in core with revision

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 28 September 2010 04:45 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 E9E0C3A6918 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:45:00 -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 D6SqnCTMKLdH for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:44:57 -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 623073A6C22 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1609 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2010 04:45:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 28 Sep 2010 04:45:37 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:45:38 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:45:43 -0700
Thread-Topic: Proposal: OAuth 1.0 signature in core with revision
Thread-Index: ActeDoaUK2WoVUKmSgyhimH2rZiaMgAfVOewAA758JA=
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB5B5@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D45D80139@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <1990A18DEA6E97429CFD1B4D2C5DA7E70CEB7D@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <1990A18DEA6E97429CFD1B4D2C5DA7E70CEB7D@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.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_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB5B5P3PW5EX1MB01E_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal: OAuth 1.0 signature in core with revision
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 04:45:01 -0000

You must be joking about 1.0a signature deployment. It's also nice that half a day is your measurement for obtaining consensus.

EHL


From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 2:38 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: RE: Proposal: OAuth 1.0 signature in core with revision

Not seeing an overwhelming support for doing this, how many interoperable deployments of 1.0a signature are there?

From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:44 PM
To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal: OAuth 1.0 signature in core with revision

Building on John Panzer's proposal, I would like to ask if people have strong objections to the following:

- Add the 1.0a RFC language for HMAC-SHA-1 signatures to the core specification in -11
- Discuss the signature language on the list and improve both prose and signature base string construction
- Apply improvements to -12

Keeping the 1.0a signature in the core specification makes sense and builds on existing experience and deployment. If we can reach quick consensus on some improvements, great. If not, we satisfy the need of many here to offer a simple alternative to bearer tokens, without having to reach consensus on a new signature algorithm suitable for core inclusion.

---

I have seen nothing to suggest that this working group is going to reach consensus on a single signature algorithm worthy of core inclusion. I agree with John that at least the 1.0a algorithm is well understood and already deployed. I can live with it used without changes, which will also allow reusing existing code with 2.0. I think we can improve it by making small changes, but have better things to do with my time than spend the next few months arguing over it.

By including the 1.0a text in -11, we will have a feature complete specification that I hope many people here can live with if it doesn't change (which looks more likely).

My question is, who here has strong objections to this, and cannot live with the core specification including the 1.0a HMAC-SHA1 algorithm?

EHL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email