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

[Eve Maler <[e-mail]>]

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).

	Eve

On 24 Sep 2010, at 10:39 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:

> wrt. developers knowing what they need => I think the AS / PR will tell developers if they need to use signatures, or if they need to use HTTPS, or if they need to use assertions. 
> 
> Sorry for including more than one topic in my email :: my main point was that I was confused by what Eve was proposing.
> 
> -- Dick
> 
> 
> On 2010-09-24, at 7:23 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> 
>> Most developers don’t know if they need signatures! By putting them elsewhere we will be promoting the bearer token approve as the default choice and that’s unacceptable to me. It is promoting a specific security compromise (for developer ease) that is far from industry consensus.
>> 
>> I can make the same arguments about assertions. Or any single profile. Or any client credentials type. The bits that are in are based solely on a team effort in trying to accommodate as many people as possible. Seems like those opposed signatures got everything they want, don’t really care about others, and are ready to call it a day.
>> 
>> EHL
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/24/10 5:20 PM, "Dick Hardt" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> That's a confusing answer Eve. Is it in the spec or pointed to from the spec?
>> 
>> I think there is consensus that there are enough use cases that signatures need to be spec'ed -- the question is if the signature spec is in core or a separate spec.
>> 
>> For people that don't need signatures, having them separate keeps the core spec simpler. Having a separate spec enables other groups to reuse the signature mechanism without confusing their readers with the rest of the OAuth spec.
>> 
>> On 2010-09-24, at 1:37 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
>> 
>> > +1 for signature support in the core spec (which may look like normative pointers out to a separate spec module if it turns out there's wider usage for that module beyond OAuth).
>> >
>> >       Eve
>> >
>> > On 23 Sep 2010, at 6:43 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since much of this recent debate was done off list, I'd like to ask people
>> >> to simply express their support or objection to including a basic signature
>> >> feature in the core spec, in line with the 1.0a signature approach.
>> >>
>> >> This is not a vote, just taking the temperature of the group.
>> >>
>> >> EHL
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OAuth mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >
>> >
>> > Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>> > [phone]                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
>> 
> 


Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
[phone]                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl