Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 24CD421F8C45 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Xym6XQsjWjv4 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com (mail-gw0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999B721F8C34 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb17 with SMTP id 17so4797452gwb.15 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=ns/bt2ichiC+R/2/fcU/gc3OndN/0GoZtHiYOsBIJp0=; b=tkmjMZ55l7qcsALxpyNPZMjyv8ZgLPdiRuJyATFoSUKlZdCHMKD0XSHaHnaEmVW8Fj qZwEpaNN1MCnFtGA8p0dzwNKCwJFN4oSa9vLLZGtMTooFqoMcQzFP0hC4ts+/bqYdAYw lK4OvnwcKJ7sKlomFLpU12x17AP/TVFgMysfE=
Received: by 10.68.33.201 with SMTP id t9mr254894pbi.148.1315420470117; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [137.229.12.236] (drake.swits.alaska.edu. [137.229.12.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x6sm7284578pba.5.2011.09.07.11.34.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E67B93C.3060909@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:34:36 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <4E665B25.6090709@mtcc.com> <4E666512.7010701@mtcc.com> <F4839FCD-CA73-4450-AD12-E07D46BB7746@hueniverse.com> <4E6667D1.3080404@mtcc.com> <1315334677.26387.YahooMailNeo@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E666B65.30701@mtcc.com> <29815937-0FB9-463B-B6E4-8FCAF7B3CD8C@hueniverse.com> <4E666E73.3050502@mtcc.com> <CAMrm-MJHKTxaj1iEm_Lr=X92sOiWZcYN4F6dNqb5w5gh4OPndQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E6671FA.3090503@gmail.com> <4E667469.2040007@mtcc.com> <1315337809.3136.38.camel@ground> <4E667953.9020906@mtcc.com> <71A460EE-1E2C-4165-99A8-5A97D6E9365C@jkemp.net> <4E667E2E.7090304@mtcc.com> <80A88920-A1EF-4A1C-A97E-F99379923CFB@jkemp.net> <4E66845E.7090906@mtcc.com> <E3DEC4C8-6BB0-44EE-821A-7589F5DC6462@jkemp.net> <4E669D3C.5000900@gmail.com> <7D4DF72E-B211-4D41-B447-4CF04E9CB1D8@hueniverse.com> <4E67A710.9070505@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E67A942.1070200@mtcc.com> <D3A6B9B9-AC0A-4D0E-ACA8-AEB1BF8D5ECF@jkemp.net> <4E67B1C3.60306@mtcc.com> <2DEC7481-6359-4E6D-9F98-D97F42AF1A19@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <2DEC7481-6359-4E6D-9F98-D97F42AF1A19@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
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: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:32:41 -0000

On 09/07/2011 10:22 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
> You should read the threat model document. This document has more editorial on these kinds of issues.

This seems reasonable to me, and thank you so much for departing
from what seems to be standard working group mode by dealing with
this like an adult.

It seems to me that there are some usability problems that while
not being unique to oauth, really aren't that much like what
we usually run into with on-the-wire protocols.  Documents in
the security area have typically not dealt with usability issues
even when, perhaps, they should, given their impact on how
secure a technology is in the field.  Getting that into a threat
model document sounds about right to me.

Melinda