Yeah, I still need 1.0a to work which I was hoping to replace with MAC.

________________________________
 From: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>
To: William Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com>; Torsten Lodderstedt 
<tors...@lodderstedt.net> 
Cc: O Auth WG <oauth@ietf.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
 

 
Agreed.  Use Bearer now.  If you have requirements that Bearer *can’t* meet, 
please use them as input to the working group’s future work.
 
                                                                -- Mike
 
From:Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:43 PM
To: William Mills
Cc: Mike Jones; O Auth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
 
Hi Bill,

do you need to specify this aspect of your SASL profile now? Why don't you wait 
for the group to complete the work on signing/HoK? 

You could also contribute your use cases to drive the discussion.

best regards,
Torsten.
Am 14.08.2012 21:37, schrieb William Mills:
It's for the OAUTH SASL spec.  I've been writing it with the idea that OAuth 
1.0a would work (since I think we'll have extant 1.0a typ[e tokens we want to 
allow for IMAP), but several folks were saying when this all started that 1.0a 
was dead and I should not refer to it.
> 
>I want to make sure the SASL mechanism is build to properly handle signed auth 
>schemes and not just bearer (cookie) type.  
> 
>-bill
> 
>
>________________________________
> 
>From:Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>
>To: William Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com>; O Auth WG <oauth@ietf.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:28 PM
>Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
> 
>What problem are you trying to solve?
> 
>From:oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>William Mills
>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:22 PM
>To: O Auth WG
>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
> 
>What's the general opinion on 1.0a?  Am I stepping in something if I refer to 
>it in another draft?  I want to reference an auth scheme that uses signing and 
>now MAC is apparently going back to the drawing board, so I'm thinking about 
>using 1.0a.
> 
>Thanks,
> 
>-bill
> 
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

Reply via email to