IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)

Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com> Mon, 10 May 2010 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <yarong@microsoft.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 744023A6C15 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 16:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 qyxkL1DqsUlP for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7E93A6A5D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14CASC130.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.52.9) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 10 May 2010 16:43:14 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.8.11]) by TK5EX14CASC130.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.52.9]) with mapi; Mon, 10 May 2010 16:43:14 -0700
From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)
Thread-Index: Acrvu4cfH3LKPgwRQV+7sW5YxUA1vAA21lGg
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:43:14 +0000
Message-ID: <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A426BAB@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3AB46E1C@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3AB46E1C@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)
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: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:43:26 -0000

Please see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 2:07 PM
> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)
> 
> DEADLINE: 5/13
> 
> I would like to publish one more draft before our interim meeting in two
> weeks (5/20). Below are two open issues we have on the list. Please reply
> with your preference (or additional solutions) to each item. Issues with
> consensus will be incorporated into the next draft. Those without will be
> discussed at the meeting.
> 
> EHL
> 
> ---
> 
> 1. Server Response Format
> 
> After extensive debate, we have a large group in favor of using JSON as the
> only response format (current draft). We also have a smaller group but with
> stronger feelings on the subject that JSON adds complexity with no obvious
> value.
> 
> A. Form-encoded only (original draft)
> B. JSON only (current draft)
> C. JSON as default with form-encoded and XML available with an optional
> request parameter
> 
[Yaron Goland]  I prefer A, can live with B and object to C.

> ---
> 
> 2. Client Authentication (in flows)
> 
> How should the client authenticate when making token requests? The
> current draft defines special request parameters for sending client
> credentials. Some have argued that this is not the correct way, and that the
> client should be using existing HTTP authentication schemes to accomplish
> that such as Basic.
> 
> A. Client authenticates by sending its credentials using special parameters
> (current draft) B. Client authenticated by using HTTP Basic (or other schemes
> supported by the server such as Digest)
> 
[Yaron Goland] A is needed at a minimum because there are physical limitations to how many bytes can go into an authorization header.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email