IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Tue, 14 August 2012 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 85ED521F86FD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 QnBRw59bdsWY for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8F921F86FA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail112-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.227) by AM1EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.3.204.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:13 +0000
Received: from mail112-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail112-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E111C00C4; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VS-22(zz9371Ic85fh4015Izz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah107ah1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail112-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail112-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail112-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1344972492257538_18676; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.229]) by mail112-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D999A0046; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.3.207.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:11 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.132]) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.25]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:08 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: William Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>, O Auth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
Thread-Index: AQHNelIeRIYAXXdX2U+xkUXfulfBLJdZsS0g
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:07 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366777A7F@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <1344972117.60342.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1344972117.60342.YahooMailNeo@web31802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.79]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366777A7FTK5EX14MBXC283r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
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, 14 Aug 2012 19:28:15 -0000

What problem are you trying to solve?

From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of William Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:22 PM
To: O Auth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a

What's the general opinion on 1.0a?  Am I stepping in something if I refer to it in another draft?  I want to reference an auth scheme that uses signing and now MAC is apparently going back to the drawing board, so I'm thinking about using 1.0a.

Thanks,

-bill

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status