Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0
Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com> Tue, 23 March 2010 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.madsen@gmail.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 8ACEA3A6CED for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.731
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6]
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 03EUMsx7H+35 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com (mail-ew0-f216.google.com [209.85.219.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1696B3A6C7C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so755335ewy.28 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4X29o+k4MY2lUMoqewW027OWZWTnArmUOxckdSbEfS8=; b=tKciT8rinUcCSjDQxSbW3zZULK13iID3N4zT9lTFy+5E1YXtVUzk+TVVGnGuOiwgUo cUSlwQJ+cMv7qxMPPxHfvO+sGiIuzDRxxO1ps3yvrZuwyj1UtqTHzHtiN8tUh6CE9IVx e18DyKX9k/t+QGMn52g3gMzLEe7yapseF6q+o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=F7vgqNDLffnn3qaZiVKlkhyrk8a9DqLSLiU6o3IpYvTiaJVjDlhhUZ0CKFTG028Xx2 vZE/4JUS928XCKuE63R+96mZUzXyPPeXcRpE79sdLj5QgTHq/95scNmtpSjpbptrD36E wK7Eu8Sf5XedOC/652Wi2GtPqv7F1PVOYu7KY=
Received: by 10.102.196.33 with SMTP id t33mr11578525muf.2.1269368241723; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.175] (CPE0022b0cb82b4-CM0012256eb4b4.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.152.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j10sm8044307mue.18.2010.03.23.11.17.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BA905A5.1080106@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:17:09 -0400
From: Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <OFF96BDDB5.0F452F7D-ON802576EF.003FF4EA-802576EF.0040455E@ie.ibm.com> <E558602B-48A1-4FB9-AB9D-0BC94DFCCC18@lodderstedt.net> <fd6741651003231047s419db471x98098a2e46aab168@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fd6741651003231047s419db471x98098a2e46aab168@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0
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: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:17:21 -0000
Separate from the Client trading a SAML assertion for an Access Token as in this flow, we are interested in defining how a Client might use SAML SSO messages to get an Access Token (comparable to OpenID/OAuth hybrid). Anybody else interested? paul On 3/23/2010 1:47 PM, David Recordon wrote: > Hey Chuck, > Thanks for rewriting the SAML flow into the style of my draft! I > really appreciate it. > > I originally dropped the SAML flow because I hadn't seen support for > it on the mailing list(s) the past two months. I think that our > default should be making the spec as short and simple as possible so > removed a few things from WRAP in order to start conversations like > this one. It's now clear that Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, and IBM > all need the SAML profile. Chuck, I'll merge your wording in. Want > to be listed as an author? > > We're also going to need to figure out which flows should be in the > core spec versus which should be developed at the same time but in > individual documents. > > Thanks, > --David > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt > <torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > >> +1 for assertion support >> >> what about enhancing the flow #2.4 to accept any kind of user credentials >> (username/password, SAML assertions, other authz servers tokens) >> >> regards, >> Torsten. >> >> Am 23.03.2010 um 12:42 schrieb Mark Mcgloin<mark.mcgloin@ie.ibm.com>: >> >> >>> +1 for assertion profile. Was there any reason why it was dropped? >>> >>> On 3/23/10, Chuck Mortimore wrote: >>> >>>> Just getting a chance to review this – I apologize for not getting this >>>> >>> before the meeting started. >>> >>> >>>> We’d like to see some form of an Assertion Profile, similar to section >>>> 5.2 >>>> >>> from draft-hardt-oauth-01. We have strong customer use-cases for an >>> assertion based flow, specifically SAML bearer tokens, and I>believe >>> Microsoft may have already shipped a minor variation on this ( wrap_SAML ) >>> in Azure. >>> >>> >>> Mark McGloin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Richard Barnes
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 John Panzer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Luke Shepard
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Allen Tom
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Richard Barnes
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Mark Mcgloin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 John Panzer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Allen Tom
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Hans Granqvist
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] First draft of OAuth 2.0 Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0: client_secret, state Marius Scurtescu