IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12 feedback deadline

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 28 February 2011 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 AA3833A6CCA for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:52 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NY-WU5do30SW for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF27D3A6CC9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p1SNRnm3010461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:27:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [135.244.20.152] (faynberg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.20.152]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p1SNRn0f029229; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:27:49 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4D6C2F74.30301@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:27:48 -0500
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A8D6254D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimjWkO8o+z+P=AKpyYkSjTh6oS7uM9N0JwR_vR6@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A91D3F44@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTi=tvwsR=_EhPRkYEwC+ERwRCNN2aAWDqRDvwx8B@mail.gmail.com> <FFDFD7371D517847AD71FBB08F9A315638493F514F@SP2-EX07VS06.ds.corp.yahoo.com> <AANLkTimxhoK1vt8HwSF9dvu4Z5xjqrLLb2SULj9pp=9b@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=DtgpWNyEKBg=0GhOWuqSvzF5q0SJQgfZNRm8M@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A91D3F9A@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTindJ3oGpggvZ7jRJ4TRhTRomyZG+DwLOfbHD2kq@mail.gmail.com> <OFEFAF96E1.1837BBD4-ON8025783B.0040108E-8025783B.0040FF69@ie.ibm.com> <AANLkTi=PnOmyaMnNrGgPnOO_wtF8b_=v99wiR5ospHLH@mail.gmail.com> <4D68F471.3090204@lodderstedt.net> <4D6C0289.3030300@alcatel-lucent.com> ! <AANLkTi=GK2Lrb_snOenhiCPxdqL85VHqLyp4Y1_aCCdp@mail.gmail.com> <C5A22573-AB0B-4368-9265-62B8083E9E65@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5A22573-AB0B-4368-9265-62B8083E9E65@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12 feedback deadline
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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, 28 Feb 2011 23:26:52 -0000

Cannot help harping... It is exactly this type of a question that Phil 
asked that makes a document on the use cases necessary!

Igor

Phil Hunt wrote:
> ...
>
> What was the original case for this flow?  That should point us as to why the separate flow and whether refresh makes sense given the higher risks of the implicit flow.
>
>   
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email