IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] resource server id needed?

Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> Fri, 16 July 2010 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <beaton@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 1E2B33A695B for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 Bp-cInp83saO for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD9A3A69C8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o6GH5Te1019719 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:05:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1279299930; bh=qWbXnQHnDJZbuePQBSdtbrbipSo=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=Tvhke8zjbkLZBWeJVQqKrtnwQxz8GZdfLQkBI4iKLoVB3kFJawv2RLyqB1/LhwIHi pH64LE5tuSr3/Q0FztCqg==
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:x-system-of-record; b=Zxn14y8hkdjLbOUNkU2pH9fz45uBemD7EJDPk01BxF8YDA2wybnSmuYjM4kX8GWuH lXaF02OAfZoPx/8obA3/Q==
Received: from pvh1 (pvh1.prod.google.com [10.241.210.193]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o6GH5Sjv014285 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:05:28 -0700
Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so1262343pvh.27 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.230.18 with SMTP id c18mr1865633wfh.139.1279299614488; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.193.19 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C408BB2.7090409@lodderstedt.net>
References: <C8645B85.372D8%eran@hueniverse.com> <4C3F3F6A.5000409@lodderstedt.net> <AANLkTinIjg7MIBmEIUzV9_Uo3MDb0nXvYXJcXNeLTUCe@mail.gmail.com> <4C3F9064.6060604@lodderstedt.net> <6B1F8C6947A5DC48B613C46E7B420A3A074C1804@S4DE9JSAACX.ost.t-com.de> <AANLkTimXxuZaNg9S6Q0-qn7Zqf6-W4Uy2QhkiYaYENKu@mail.gmail.com> <4C408BB2.7090409@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:00:13 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOq9pV5XgmJams-E2JITGgR06jEeYIRWs1jrQx@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Wolfgang.Steigerwald@telekom.de, oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] resource server id needed?
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: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:05:21 -0000

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
<torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
> then we should put those use cases and requirements on the table and try to
> find a solution fulfilling these different needs. That's what (from my point
> of view) standard definition is all about.
>
> What do you think?

Sounds fine to me.  I don't think we could realistically target the
work for the core oauth spec.  An extension would work well.

For my future use cases, at any rate, the core oauth spec is fine.
the web-server flow and the user-agent flow are both compatible with
what I'd want to do.

Cheers,
Brian

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status