Re: [OAUTH-WG] Oauth Server to Server

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6D711E8121 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23INZIpoEljP for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog107.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog107.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.197]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F3A21F9946 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob107.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUkGHL9La60z/FNV1oSwFHKgxewmHTjnV@postini.com; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:36:00 PDT
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x13so8954940ief.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=h1K7Jzw+8jjNA1tdk51TXTOyVUt7T02njiJVCZH1mAY=; b=ApYmYxVXNCI+GpqCfW1cwu46hmAXUzBGWqg+Wu1VDWQbz+r61C6kKTc5xo0WKRg/FW 6eCtb3qQ5z0HJRNtCtoKbsRoEnpAkuBesTJ/sLJnpvQp2IqX1KEjlloU8UPmKGrDj71v FE/pQgbuDARb8ve/c633HfpbpjNJeOgFnXKFWkA00XN2AjVDZagwKltkBpo4hMQH3riE 9aWWX8GSR981gW4YT4EUM4CxHHVERy/08XVak0zYeS/cDBE96OQzqZ9t1gkrOFWuxc6r cx+BPXkKRIBzaueapbOAaJcf/RnRZpjGDOsWFOGU2ONauZbTVzk5qoqE1y1ws2xjiZwH Q9Dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6Wfi/SJpqu29XcI1XN8X4io5yw4zHEWCNRC3piggueFKTiL0lOHiQ5AmLOyY0P8ERYF33S299BeOx+gSnyHMuuCXpNRQ3bFXHndyN/uSoejw7nbtE/p3rCW2+z1wmIdxaPT5CQ8e42zdeFWJzf+jLnHZnIg==
X-Received: by 10.43.104.73 with SMTP id dl9mr9700242icc.39.1380026159719; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.43.104.73 with SMTP id dl9mr9700226icc.39.1380026159576; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.232.229 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <832FA2A6-D0DD-45D0-9107-7EE02B6793B7@adobe.com>
References: <832FA2A6-D0DD-45D0-9107-7EE02B6793B7@adobe.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 06:35:29 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCSVwT15wBwuCZNy1EuiVOSwVg+TThVvWnbwZ1wHVvfA-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5171bf105cdc704e720611b"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Oauth Server to Server
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 24 Sep 2013 12:36:25 -0000

Might this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer be what
you're looking for?


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hi *,
>
> apologis to be back to this argument :).
>
> Let me try to better explain one use case that IMHO would be really good
> to have in the OAuth specification family :)
>
> At the moment the only "OAuth standard" way I know to do OAuth server to
> server is to use [0] namely Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant.
>
> Let me tell I am not a big fun of this particular flow :) (but this is
> another story).
>
> An arguable better way to solve this scenario is to user (and why not to
> standardise :S?) the method used by Google (or a variant of it) see [1].
>
> Couple of more things:
>
> - I do not know if Google would be interested to put some effort to
> standardise it (is anybody from Google lurking :) e.g.Tim Bray :D )
> - I am not too familiar with IETF process. Would the OAuth WG take in
> consideration such proposal draft??
>
> Thanks and regards
>
> Antonio
>
> [0] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.3
> [1] https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2ServiceAccount
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>