IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a

Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Tue, 14 August 2012 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
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 F020521E8091 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 cxM3njor-lir for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622AD21E8085 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 00E8A21B079A; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:52:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (imccas03.mitre.org [129.83.29.80]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F1821B0635; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:52:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [129.83.50.26] (129.83.31.51) by IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:52:10 -0400
Message-ID: <502ABA28.4050207@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:50:48 -0400
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
References: <1344972117.60342.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1344972117.60342.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000602040705090906040401"
X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.51]
Cc: O Auth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
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, 14 Aug 2012 20:52:14 -0000

In my personal view, 1.0a is technically obsoleted but still useful, 
especially for cases where 2 doesn't offer a solution right now. If you 
can specify a way to bind to different token/signature types, you'd be 
able to leave yourself the flexibility.

  -- Justin

On 08/14/2012 03:21 PM, William Mills wrote:
> What's the general opinion on 1.0a?  Am I stepping in something if I 
> refer to it in another draft?  I want to reference an auth scheme that 
> uses signing and now MAC is apparently going back to the drawing 
> board, so I'm thinking about using 1.0a.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email