Re: [OAUTH-WG] [kitten] Fwd: [IANA #731918] SASL mechanism not listed

To be clear, Google will continue to support XOAUTH and XOAUTH2 for some
time, along with OAUTHBEARER, in order to support existing clients.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Google used XOAUTH for it's original OAuth 1.0a based mechanism.  They
> used XOAUTH2 to specifically not conflict with whatever name we
> standardized on for the mechanism as standardized.
>
> They plan, according to Ryan who's been participating on list, to
> implement the standardized mechanism definition under the OAUTHBEARER
> mechanism name so there should be no conflict.
>
> Regards,
>
> -bill
>
>
>   On Monday, March 24, 2014 12:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <
> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> See below. I think (not quite sure) that this is better
> discussed on the kitten list.
>
> Ta,
> S.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [kitten] [IANA #731918] SASL mechanism not listed
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:33:06 +0000
> From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> To: kitten@ietf.org <kitten@ietf.org>
> CC: iana-questions@iana.org <iana-questions@iana.org>
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> IANA were asked the following question a while back, but I
> dropped the ball;-)
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I'm not quite
> sure which registries are meant exactly though.
>
> (I'll also forward to the oauth WG, but not cross-post)
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> <start>
>
> The following draft describes a SASL mechanism that is in use on
> GMail and should not therefore be allocated to another scheme unless
> we want bad things to happen.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-murchison-sasl-login-00.txt
>
> The strings XOAUTH and XOAUTH2 are also being used for a preliminary
> version of the OAUTH spec as well.
>
> The reason Google is using this particular mechanism rather than
> PLAIN is that it is the one that has the widest client support:
>
> http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/smtpauth.html
>
> So it would be a real disaster if this particular code point was re-issued.
>
> It would probably be a good idea if every registry had a list of 'dirty'
> code points that must not be reused because there are existing
> applications.
>
> <end>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> Kitten@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> Kitten@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>
>