Re: [OAUTH-WG] Signature crypto

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Wed, 25 November 2009 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.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 90A133A6B52 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ocUfK-IA3Lp4 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.33.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF073A6820 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zps18.corp.google.com (zps18.corp.google.com [172.25.146.18]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id nAPLV5ma001267 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:31:07 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1259184667; bh=KN9iO8nD4AY8hJmnNcnYGCZyBok=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=joNV4XdpwOjbe2BYM78Lr9wNX0iNr/iZwkjqe+7Ec9n652AOH+z5q5PP3em2lyRnt uOPHScwD5rBezVXn88K8A==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=t4ObVmVEuRdqLybbSV3gpVn5DFCX1rUXbUMoPqWRywAh72rfc/6jw7QowTcccczh3 I9ppWnZ30E5LGIfPM/yNQ==
Received: from qyk38 (qyk38.prod.google.com [10.241.83.166]) by zps18.corp.google.com with ESMTP id nAPLV2D4015936 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:02 -0800
Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38so64976qyk.25 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.12.212 with SMTP id y20mr1178727qcy.16.1259184662317; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <daf5b9570911251107x3d62be03s8a827acd8eb4d1ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343785183009@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <4B0D3698.8070706@cs.tcd.ie> <3a880e2c0911250618w358579d9o38b5ad90cb9242af@mail.gmail.com> <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501EE54E2@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <3a880e2c0911251024g1310d64fld7adf54951433d30@mail.gmail.com> <4B0D7EF0.5010002@jkemp.net> <daf5b9570911251107x3d62be03s8a827acd8eb4d1ef@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:02 -0800
Message-ID: <1b587cab0911251331l643f003w1d6a630c1244edcf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>, oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Signature crypto
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, 25 Nov 2009 21:31:14 -0000

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM, John Kemp <john@jkemp.net> wrote:
>> In any case, I wouldn't really call it "chaos" just because there are
>> multiple OSS implementations. I hope that people will develop tools that
>> work for them. And I suspect that the most important parts of OAuth to
>> standardize on are a) the protocol itself, b) the HTTP authentication
>> mechanism and c) a method of negotiating the relevant twiddly bits, as
>> necessary (and where it should be noted that "no signature at all" is
>> potentially an acceptable signature algorithm).
>
> Yep.
>
> Whatever signature scheme we specify here is going to be obsolete in a
> few years.  The most important thing is that there is a smooth upgrade
> path.

And no smooth downgrade path :-)

>
> Cheers,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>