Re: [OAUTH-WG] conf call follow up from today

[William Mills <[e-mail]>]

We can do that too, and I rather like it.  I thought there was a big "don't cross the beams" warning somewhere though.

-bill


________________________________
 From: "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]>
To: William Mills <[e-mail]> 
Cc: O Auth WG <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] conf call follow up from  today
 

What if we define a means to request OAuth1 style tokens from an OAuth2 auth/token endpoint, but defer to OAuth1 for methods of how to use the token at protected resources? 

 -- Justin



On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:22 PM, William Mills <[e-mail]> wrote:

1)  I think that we need to focus on specific solutions, as I said on the call, and solve the OAuth 1.0a/MAC use case.  There's significant installed base of OAuth 1.0a and we need a path for those installations into OAuth 2.0.  I may well pursue MAC in the interim to do this, but a full HOK solution woul work too.
>
>
>2)  I think the discussion we were having about "which authenticator to use" falls squarely into the endpoint discovery discussion and we should put that energy into endpoint discovery as distinct from HOK.
>
>
>3)  We haven't talked yet about how a client will be able to specify a token type if it wants a specific one.  OAuth 2 core will need to be extended to support this.
>
>
>4)  We should leave the key distribution/discovery mechanism either out of scope or define it explicitly per HOK token type profile.  This will have to work with the extensions for #3 above.
>
>
>5)  I want to avoid the problem in OAuth 1.0a of having to support and accept every possible signing mode.  Being force to accept PLAINTEXT sucks.  We need a way for the discovery endpoint to mandate a specific set of allowed signature methods.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>-bill
>
>
_______________________________________________
>OAuth mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>