Hello folks,

>A few questions we should answer before moving forward. Considering
*your* >use cases and reasons for being here:
>
>1. Why are you here? What are you trying to solve that is not already
>addressed by existing specifications (OAuth 1.0a, WRAP, etc)?

I am here because I support open standards and would like to see some
improvements/additions to the protocol. Recursive delegation is the main
pain point that I want to address (see the ID of redelegation) 
This is important for Mesh-ups or for content managers that use
different services to have good interoperability with the different
providers.
WRAP could help here for TLS-enabled environments, but there are use
cases where you don't have such an environment. 

>2. Should the WG start by taking WRAP or OAuth 1.0a as its starting
point? >Something else?

Or we start a new document, combining the different ID's or we should
start from our previous "consensus" around OAuth 1.0a

>3. If we start from draft-hammer-oauth, what needs to change to turn it
>into OAuth 2.0?

The idea of Resource Owner Authorization should be adapted to provide a
clean way to do the recursive delegation flow.
Replacing the "PLAINTEXT"-method with WRAP

>4. If we start from draft-hardt-oauth, what needs to change to turn it
into >OAuth 2.0?


I see WRAP as a nice replacement for the "PLAINTEXT"-method, so the
other cases should be added.

>5. Do you think the approach of working first on 'how to use a token'
and >then on 'how to get a token' is right?

There should be a simple spec having the whole flow, instead that you
should read different documents to get a feeling of what there is
written. Maybe the split could be used, if there is a third document
that glues them together with a clear vision/use case.

>6. Should we go back to working on a single specification?

See previous answer

>7. Do you think the protocol should include a signature-based
>authentication scheme?

Yes.



Best regards,

Bart Vrancken

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to