And our SASL for IMAP (and SMTP) support for OAuth 2.0 will be launching in the very near future.
The implementation conforms to draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-03, except for the mechanism name. (We're launching with an alternate mechanism name, so that we don't conflict with the standard when it is completed.) Once this standard is published, we'll also add support for it. -R On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI: Google's SASL for IMAP is with OAuth 1.0A -- took me a while to get > it working. > > On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:53 PM, William Mills wrote: > > I want to get the SASL work done. HoK is interesting, but I've become > convinced that it's not actually anything that needs it's own spec, you can > do HoK with MAC or any other signed scheme by including the needed proof of > ownership in the token. HoK, however it works out, is unlikely to vary a > lot from the elements that would currently be needed to support MAC or 1.0a > and if needed can just extend the SASL mechanism. > > -bill > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Torsten Lodderstedt <[email protected]> > *To:* William Mills <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Mike Jones <[email protected]>; O Auth WG <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:42 PM > *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 <[email protected]><[email protected]> > *To:* William Mills <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; O > Auth WG <[email protected]> <[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]<[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 [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
