Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0
Chuck Mortimore <cmortimore@salesforce.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 00:15 UTC
Return-Path: <cmortimore@salesforce.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 0E76D3A69EF for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.868
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 u-V3-MX17C7p for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod8og111.obsmtp.com (exprod8og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 774E83A694C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([204.14.239.239]) by exprod8ob111.postini.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS6lZpglSBubkTFCBVAZzovFCpTyPPqxR@postini.com; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:35 PDT
Received: from EXSFM-MB01.internal.salesforce.com ([10.1.127.45]) by exsfm-hub4.internal.salesforce.com ([10.1.127.8]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:34 -0700
From: Chuck Mortimore <cmortimore@salesforce.com>
To: Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:33 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0
Thread-Index: AcrKtTkwdGxigd+ZSEWCqL9U7s0kiAAMeU7b
Message-ID: <C7CEA7B5.2940%cmortimore@salesforce.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BA905A5.1080106@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7CEA7B52940cmortimoresalesforcecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0
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: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:15:23 -0000
Outside the scope of what this WG should be tackling in the core spec IMO, but I'd be interested in working on a profile. There is a lot of this use-case being done in an ad-hoc manner on my platform. -cmort On 3/23/10 11:17 AM, "Paul Madsen" <paul.madsen@gmail.com> wrote: Separate from the Client trading a SAML assertion for an Access Token as in this flow, we are interested in defining how a Client might use SAML SSO messages to get an Access Token (comparable to OpenID/OAuth hybrid). Anybody else interested? paul On 3/23/2010 1:47 PM, David Recordon wrote: > Hey Chuck, > Thanks for rewriting the SAML flow into the style of my draft! I > really appreciate it. > > I originally dropped the SAML flow because I hadn't seen support for > it on the mailing list(s) the past two months. I think that our > default should be making the spec as short and simple as possible so > removed a few things from WRAP in order to start conversations like > this one. It's now clear that Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, and IBM > all need the SAML profile. Chuck, I'll merge your wording in. Want > to be listed as an author? > > We're also going to need to figure out which flows should be in the > core spec versus which should be developed at the same time but in > individual documents. > > Thanks, > --David > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt > <torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > >> +1 for assertion support >> >> what about enhancing the flow #2.4 to accept any kind of user credentials >> (username/password, SAML assertions, other authz servers tokens) >> >> regards, >> Torsten. >> >> Am 23.03.2010 um 12:42 schrieb Mark Mcgloin<mark.mcgloin@ie.ibm.com>: >> >> >>> +1 for assertion profile. Was there any reason why it was dropped? >>> >>> On 3/23/10, Chuck Mortimore wrote: >>> >>>> Just getting a chance to review this - I apologize for not getting this >>>> >>> before the meeting started. >>> >>> >>>> We'd like to see some form of an Assertion Profile, similar to section >>>> 5.2 >>>> >>> from draft-hardt-oauth-01. We have strong customer use-cases for an >>> assertion based flow, specifically SAML bearer tokens, and I>believe >>> Microsoft may have already shipped a minor variation on this ( wrap_SAML ) >>> in Azure. >>> >>> >>> Mark McGloin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Richard Barnes
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 John Panzer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Luke Shepard
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Allen Tom
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Richard Barnes
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Mark Mcgloin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 John Panzer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Allen Tom
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Hans Granqvist
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Marius Scurtescu