IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Basic signature support in the core specification

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Sat, 25 September 2010 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@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 3AF943A6964 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ueTI+0iDno12 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847A03A6907 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi3 with SMTP id 3so185914pwi.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to :x-mailer; bh=MNDV0x0Dw9sQdV/0J36YjAbglBlqBxZrGs2z5UHJ1pM=; b=hkNPx7WqfDJCtpvE6VIMXjmdMrMrWSyVAXWrlJt0065snWAM/1hK72v3lp6IE2QwB6 jtx1Xj2BkCGXtLqLKf7Bt65mjPK462amQ64B7k+L1UECydDudHDz3RjrIoyXLQDBSdLK SacZ+YHTijExV96ozcVjqF1oEQXKkzLuyPEAE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=QeeR+auq50YGcUkG7BJ4mX+h0iE5tg8KEaHvJEy4lft5I4Ze3Ugk2CQfsx0nQPatCR W0cJYbE/luFutmjRXWGzq8Xl/62fGNSN6QizHmbfowjXxDCKEb2tI4W3J4gX2N7RG7kL YAt6A7ga/QSUepxvKJaugwV1Qmpnpl5iYumQQ=
Received: by 10.114.113.9 with SMTP id l9mr4817494wac.109.1285393388056; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] ([24.130.32.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k23sm4989314waf.5.2010.09.24.22.43.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-4--3978696"
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8C2AB86.3AD3A%eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:43:02 -0700
Message-Id: <4841DD76-D7A3-4773-8F03-7C741D44C2CB@gmail.com>
References: <C8C2AB86.3AD3A%eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Basic signature support in the core specification
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: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 05:42:40 -0000

I don't follow your logic ... or perhaps I don't see why the spec needs to be written in more than two parts.

For example, the current spec does not specify the format of the token -- which keeps it simpler and straight forward. There are separate draft specs for standardizing the token. Similarly, I think the spec could be written to not include signatures, and put signatures into a different, reusable spec. If you would like help with that organization, I'll volunteer. :)

-- Dick

On 2010-09-24, at 7:24 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> I’m happy to do that. But I will be breaking the spec into more than two parts. Basically, I will be creating a version that does not force anyone to read anything they might not care about. Clearly, we shouldn’t based editorial decisions on what you want to read :-)
> 
> EHL
> 
> 
> On 9/24/10 5:21 PM, "Dick Hardt" <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> -1 in core
> 
> +1 to being referenced in core and being a separate document
> 
> On 2010-09-23, at 6:43 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> 
> > Since much of this recent debate was done off list, I'd like to ask people
> > to simply express their support or objection to including a basic signature
> > feature in the core spec, in line with the 1.0a signature approach.
> >
> > This is not a vote, just taking the temperature of the group.
> >
> > EHL
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email