[OAUTH-WG] Oauth Server to Server

Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <asanso@adobe.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 7B34411E811A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 HkrhHdjo4pB6 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og124.obsmtp.com (exprod6og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4219711E8116 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob124.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUkGAzHXZvFy2uJjmGR11cJJTK5fRMg4i@postini.com; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:08:44 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r8OC56iH014434 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nacas01.corp.adobe.com (nacas01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.99]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r8OC8h6A011975 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eurcas01.eur.adobe.com (10.128.4.27) by nacas01.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:08:43 -0700
Received: from [10.132.1.66] (10.132.1.66) by eurcas01.eur.adobe.com (10.128.4.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.327.1; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:08:39 +0100
From: Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <832FA2A6-D0DD-45D0-9107-7EE02B6793B7@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:08:33 +0200
To: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Subject: [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 12:08:49 -0000

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