Re: [oauth] Another Charter Text Update

"Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 23 February 2009 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 BF0903A67E2 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:16:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.271
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.328, 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 aYGCQFcpqt6p for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:16:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AD3843A67DD for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2009 20:16:56 -0000
Received: from a91-154-108-144.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.108.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 23 Feb 2009 21:16:56 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+3yS4Qd0O3fYPkxT60pi6+msLnZx8gRbDH0m8Ksr J963YF+ahcXirQ
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
To: 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450112E54B@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <49A2C2BF.6020903@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:17:53 +0200
Message-ID: <011901c995f3$cf2cc8a0$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <49A2C2BF.6020903@cs.tcd.ie>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: AcmVzKm3cKVoY+dMS9eJ/9zw+X8YtQAEXa+w
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.67
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [oauth] Another Charter Text Update
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Oauth bof discussion <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: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:16:44 -0000

Hi Stephen, 

>> Furthermore, OAuth 1.0 defines three signature methods used 
>to protect 
>> requests, namely PLAINTEXT, HMAC-SHA1, and RSA-SHA1. The group will 
>> work on new signature methods and will describe the 
>environments where 
>> new security requirements justify their usage. Existing signature 
>> methods will not be modified but may be dropped as part of the 
>> backwards compatible profiling activity. The applicability 
>of existing 
>> and new signature methods to protocols other than HTTP will 
>be investigated.
>
>Note that the term "signature" here is used consistently with 
>OAuth 1.0 and encompasses both asymmetric digital signatures, 
>symmetric authentication and even use of a plaintext secret. 
>The WG may decide to modify this terminology as part of its 
>work, so keeping the existing usage is correct at this point in time.

Do you think that the term "signature" needs to be clarified given that I
mention the three signature methods available in OAuth 1.0 the same
paragraph? 

Ciao
Hannes