Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of -22

On 11/03/2011 09:25 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> It can help by telling servers that as long as they support one of the MTI types, they will be able to interop. Of course, they don't have to.
>
> My feeling is that until there is an actual discovery experience out there that works, this kind of interop is not really an issue ATM.
>    

 From what I can tell as a developer, it seems that every oauth server 
deployment
comes with their very own oauth client library/sdk. So there's a twitter 
one, a g+ one,
a fb one, etc. Ultimately there may be an oauth equivalent to openssl, 
but it's
not there afaik, and probably won't be for a while since the library/sdk 
needs to
support php, perl, python, ruby, blah, blah, blah instead of just a C 
library with
higher level language specific veneers on  top of it as needed.

So the reality is that any unified client is going to have to support 
what servers
demand, not the other way around. Which means it's going to have to be a 
kitchen sink
client library to handle the various choices that servers make. So I'd 
say no to
any form of an sdp-like* offer/answer protocol; it's just easier to keep 
adding to
the client kitchen sink.

Mike

[*] sdp offer/answer was necessary because of _hardware_ limitations... 
usually because
of codec complexity where an endpoint physically might not be able to 
interoperate.
that's good motivation. I doubt there's anything comparable with oauth.

> EHL
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 5:46 AM
>> To: William Mills
>> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; John Bradley; Torsten Lodderstedt; oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of -22
>>
>> This is exactly what I was thinking of. If a given token type is MTI for clients,
>> but servers can do whatever they want (this, as I read it, is what was
>> suggested), how does the MTI bit help interop at all?
>>
>>   -- Justin
>>
>> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 15:48 -0700, William Mills wrote:
>>      
>>> I actually think the protected resource specifies the token type(s) in
>>> either it's service docs or discovery information, and it does know
>>> knowing it's authentication server will issue compatible tokens.  The
>>> client may encounter endpoints requiring token types it doesn't
>>> support, and it needs to fail gracefully.  The client may select any
>>> supported OAuth 2 scheme it understands which the PR supports.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not in favor of specifying MUST for any particular flavor of
>>> token.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the value of mandating a token type?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> __________________________________________________________
>> ____________
>>      
>>> From: Eran Hammer-Lahav<eran@hueniverse.com>
>>> To: John Bradley<ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>; Torsten Lodderstedt
>>> <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
>>> Cc: "oauth@ietf.org"<oauth@ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 1:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of -22
>>>
>>> Do you want to see no change or adjust it to client must implement
>>> both, server decides which to use.
>>>
>>> EHL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> __________________________________________________________
>> ____________
>>      
>>> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> John Bradley [ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 1:06 PM
>>> To: Torsten Lodderstedt
>>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of -22
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>> On 2011-11-02, at 4:45 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> I'm concerned about your proposal (7) to make support for MAC a MUST
>>>> for clients and BEARER a MAY only. In my opinion, this does not
>>>> reflect the group's consensus. Beside this, the security threat
>>>> analysis justifies usage of BEARER for nearly all use cases as long
>>>> as HTTPS (incl. server authentication) can be utilized.
>>>> regards,
>>>> Torsten.
>>>>
>>>> Am 13.10.2011 19:13, schrieb Stephen Farrell:
>>>>          
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for having been quite slow with this, but I had a bunch of
>>>>> travel recently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, my AD comments on -22 are attached. I think that the first
>>>>> list has the ones that need some change before we push this out
>>>>> for IETF LC, there might or might not be something to change as a
>>>>> result of the 2nd list of questions and the rest are really nits
>>>>> can be handled either now or later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all your work on this so far - its nearly there IMO and
>>>>> we should be able to get the IETF LC started once these few things
>>>>> are dealt with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> S.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>            
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>        
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>    