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