Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a

Hi Bill,

do you need to specify this aspect of your SASL profile now? Why don't 
you wait for the group to complete the work on signing/HoK?

You could also contribute your use cases to drive the discussion.

best regards,
Torsten.

Am 14.08.2012 21:37, schrieb William Mills:
> It's for the OAUTH SASL spec.  I've been writing it with the idea that 
> OAuth 1.0a would work (since I think we'll have extant 1.0a typ[e 
> tokens we want to allow for IMAP), but several folks were saying when 
> this all started that 1.0a was dead and I should not refer to it.
>
> I want to make sure the SASL mechanism is build to properly handle 
> signed auth schemes and not just bearer (cookie) type.
>
> -bill
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> *To:* William Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>; O Auth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:28 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth