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 <[email protected]>
To: William Mills <[email protected]>; O Auth WG <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0a
What problem are you trying to solve?
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
