Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WRAP

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]>]

Not really. It is more about who you listen to than who is speaking.

EHL


On 11/10/09 1:40 PM, "Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Eran:

Thanks for your clarification.

It seems to me that without simple guidelines on what's reasonable to be
called "OAuth", anyone can propose a protocol that purports to be
related in some way to OAuth, at the expense of community confusion and
dilution of its meaning. Is there a way to mitigate this kind of
occurrence other than by simply dismissing it as noise?

Paul

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:16 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> My 2c:
>
> WRAP was developed out of necessity due to limitations in OAuth and
> product release schedule. Without going into too much detail about
> whether a whole new protocol was really necessary, the WRAP authors
> felt that it was, and that their timeline could not accommodate
> waiting for the OAUTH WG to accommodate their use cases in the new
> version of the spec. We now have a new and separate spec in the space.
>
> I have encouraged the authors to submit their spec as input for the WG
> and to collaborate to make the upcoming WG spec cover their use case.
> The goal would be to render the separate WRAP spec unnecessary. How
> they or others would choose to apply this to their implementation is
> beyond my control or (TBH) interest.
>
> Most of the innovative ideas in WRAP are around the delegation flow
> (and there are some good ideas in there). I plan to use some of that
> as the basis for the new delegation spec. On the authentication side,
> WRAP uses bearer token with no crypto which will be supported by the
> PLAIN flavor.
>
> As for how to manage community expectations, the OAuth brand, etc.: I
> was opposed to putting WRAP under the OAuth brand (the entire effort
> started as "Simple OAuth"). Others felt that pretending WRAP was an
> OAuth profile (it is not) and naming it as such would be less
> confusing or less damaging to the OAuth brand (if you call it the same
> thing, there is no competition). I didn't care enough to (continue)
> that argument given my view that by the time WRAP will get the wide
> attention OAuth has, this WG will produce stable drafts of the new
> OAuth and will make this irrelevant.
>
> EHL
>
>
>
>
> On 11/10/09 11:56 AM, "Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         I guess I must admit I'm a bit surprised that the general
>         consensus
>         would be to merge with/profile WRAP as OAuth, as the deltas
>         between the
>         two protocols as defined seems quite substantial. Does this
>         mean that
>         for all intents and purposes I should consider the existing
>         OAuth IETF
>         drafts to date to be deprecated in favour of WRAP?
>
>         Paul
>
>         On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 19:46 +0000, Dick Hardt wrote:
>         > Good question. Given the positive reception WRAP received at
>         IIW and
>         > that capabilities in WRAP are expected to come out of the
>         work in the
>         > IETF OAuth WG, there was consensus from the OAuth community
>         to include
>         > WRAP as OAuth profiles.
>         >
>         > -- Dick
>         >
>         > On 2009-11-10, at 10:06 AM, "Paul C. Bryan"
>         <[e-mail]> wrote:
>         >
>         > > Hi Dick:
>         > >
>         > > Given that WRAP is so different from OAuth (as I know it),
>         other than
>         > > the fact that OAuth could be used to negotiate the
>         issuance of a WRAP
>         > > refresh token, I'm curious why you chose to associate this
>         with
>         > > OAuth by
>         > > giving it an "OAuth" prefix. It seems to me that it would
>         only create
>         > > confusion in this space.
>         > >
>         > > Paul
>         > >
>         > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 17:52 +0000, Dick Hardt wrote:
>         > >> At IIW last week, myself, Biran Eaton from Google and
>         Allen Tom from
>         > >> Yahoo! presented what is now called OAuth WRAP
>         > >>
>         > >> The specs and discussion specific to those documents is
>         at:
>         > >>
>         > >>    http://groups.google.com/group/oauth-wrap-wg
>         > >>
>         > >> We plan to submit the document as an I-D next week when
>         I-D
>         > >> submission
>         > >> is open again, and for further work to occur in the IETF
>         OAuth WG.
>         > >>
>         > >> -- Dick
>         > >> _______________________________________________
>         > >> OAuth mailing list
>         > >> [e-mail]
>         > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>         > >
>         > > _______________________________________________
>         > > OAuth mailing list
>         > > [e-mail]
>         > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>         > >
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         OAuth mailing list
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth