IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Basic signature support in the core specification

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Sun, 26 September 2010 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@gmail.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 B2B6C3A6A4C for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, 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 CDu2yYkwkK71 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96243A6A96 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvg7 with SMTP id 7so1363730pvg.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=hV6Gkjl+IyShzOlETiq2oh0Cc/vUTgk2pCvbRI3gN6U=; b=o7x0cQvgevze58Hob/vcP/XmONR6Kz3hBwH1+Ho13LwndAmP5iGIYrG/HavvCZocgE VLrFgUtCbBxujt3rAF3wSLr7AiaEiV0A5eMftSfMLVAMDG1giHRMQ9Qcq6XG+/ySzK71 Y2qz01J/AaPF8UtksgixfTxIOXWYWgtiMq6Qw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=XYpVL9vjhfeqLV7aTYLPYH205A8UfWXnMewpCeRTTS6RncAMPoynGd+CmsFxtERq0N +XWxciwcvXP3k3mqzvMG1DNI3sgkojlX6+vuA+OMvGhZv2kJpViZY8+0XEBcvJzE+h/Z /4D3VbD2x6EXH1oz0a8N3nvfIBeF/flyWEd3g=
Received: by 10.142.222.12 with SMTP id u12mr5198789wfg.321.1285515109288; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (c-24-130-32-55.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.32.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9sm5940225wfd.16.2010.09.26.08.31.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0B0A685-4BA7-451B-B0DF-C0FC429595D1@xmlgrrl.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 08:31:44 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B311A7A-AED2-4C1A-95A4-D9AB6DB61E65@gmail.com>
References: <C8C2AB33.3AD38%eran@hueniverse.com> <BFD0447E-42BB-441F-A7B3-B0CFB0F6317B@gmail.com> <E0B0A685-4BA7-451B-B0DF-C0FC429595D1@xmlgrrl.com>
To: Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Basic signature support in the core specification
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: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:31:14 -0000

On 2010-09-25, at 7:52 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

> It seems like you figured it out pretty quickly, given the message you sent immediately after. :-)

> 
> Referencing another spec from the core spec using normative text is effectively "including it by reference". I meant that I'm sympathetic (+1) to signaling in core OAuth that signatures are to be considered an integral part of it, and that if it makes sense to do so by pointing to a spec module that is pointable-to by other specs that are not OAuth, that's fine (call it a soft -1 to including the signature details directly in the core OAuth spec).
> 

thanks for clarifying your view since it seemed you had +1 to having details in OAuth and +1 to referencing

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status