So we have been working with Nat on the signature proposal and talking to Nat he agrees that the JWT proposal is well under way, what I would like to make sure is that we merged in with your proposal
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Balfanz Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:13 AM To: David Recordon Cc: oauth Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Signature Draft Pre 00 I'm just as confused :-) I think what happened is that I posted a signature draft and then didn't follow up. Nat then very kindly agreed to help and put out a draft, but that also didn't get much momentum. So I went back and re-did my drafts. Also, somewhere along the way, Yoran wrote a draft. At least that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. I might be getting it wrong (maybe Yoran's draft represents a merge of his and Nat's thinking? - I'm not sure). At any rate, of course we need to end up with one proposal in the end. I'm fairly agnostic about the details, but I believe the following should be true about any merged proposal: - very limited number of options for signature algorithms, key representations (should not require more than 10..20 lines of code in your given platform, without any additional library, to implement signature and key parsing). - must support both public and symmetric keys. - should not have security flaws Dirk. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:59 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com<mailto:record...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm a bit confused between the relationship of Nat's I-D and the documents you and Mike recently posted. Is the goal to have one I-D? Nat's seems to have fewer options and different modes which makes it easier to read and understand. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Yaron Goland <yar...@microsoft.com<mailto:yar...@microsoft.com>> wrote: BTW, Nat and I, as mentioned below, are talking. Here is my current draft. Please keep in mind that it's really just a set of notes trying to capture all the issues involved in creating a secure token format so it's a bit dense. My hope is that once all the issues are captured it can be completely re-written to be in something that looks more like English and is easier for actual implementers to follow. But for now I think it gives a good sense of the some of the security challenges in creating a secure token format. Yaron From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:50 AM To: oauth Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Signature Draft Pre 00 Hi. It has been a few weeks since then I volunteered to do this work. I have written up to this pre 00 draft then have been doing some reality checks on some script languages etc. No. This pre-00 draft is far from being feature complete. I still need to copy and paste the Magic Signatures text etc. Also, I should add how this spec is being used in some of the major flows. However, since I will not be able to work on it this week, I thought it would be worthwhile to share this early draft so that you have some clarity into the progress. Apparently, Yaron has been working on it as well. We will compare the notes and try to merge, I hope. So, here it is! #For those of you who have seen the private draft, it has not been changed since July 31. Best, =nat _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
