Re: [OAUTH-WG] proposed agenda for second interim meeting

2010-02-03 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
Has anyone gathered and reviewed use cases? I haven't seen much of that showing up on the list. From my experience, asking people for use cases rarely works, unless someone is willing to do the work and collect them (and so far I haven't heard from such volunteer). I much prefer the process in

Re: [OAUTH-WG] proposed agenda for second interim meeting

2010-02-03 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
I read the minutes. I don't need to be on the call to present my views on how to proceed. That's not how the IETF operates. I have been expressing my views for the past year, right here on the list. I didn't see any consensus call from the chairs about taking this approach (instead of others).

Re: [OAUTH-WG] proposed agenda for second interim meeting

2010-02-03 Thread Blaine Cook
I've started a wiki page here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/wiki/OauthFeatureMatrix to pull in the features people think are important, and give us both some way of collecting that data over time and expressing what's present or missing from each protocol proposal. Despite being

Re: [OAUTH-WG] proposed agenda for second interim meeting

2010-02-03 Thread Dick Hardt
On 2010-02-03, at 11:21 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: -Original Message- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:19 AM To: Dick Hardt Cc: OAuth WG Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] proposed agenda for

Re: [OAUTH-WG] proposed agenda for second interim meeting

2010-02-03 Thread Dick Hardt
On 2010-02-03, at 12:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: hat type='chair'/ On 2/3/10 12:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: Wanting to discuss technical details when there does not seem to be consensus on the problem we are solving was my Titanic reference. Remember, these interim meetings are

[OAUTH-WG] Comment on draft-hammer-http-token-auth-01

2010-02-03 Thread Manger, James H
Comments on draft-hammer-http-token-auth-01 (3 Feb 2010) after a quick read. [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-http-token-auth-01] The simple bearer token mode is still buried as an exception to the request signing rules. This just isn’t necessary, it’s awful. Choosing a hash

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comment on draft-hammer-http-token-auth-01

2010-02-03 Thread Manger, James H
I disagree. Voiding a token to stop supporting an algorithm is perfectly reasonable and might not even require user involvement if the refresh mechanism is (adopted and) used. And if the reason for this is a broken algorithm, well, I would hope the tokens are voided, not just used with the

Re: [OAUTH-WG] What are the primary criteria in issuing an authentication challenge?

2010-02-03 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
Just to be clear, I was referring to the case where a client can figure out how to obtain authorization and then authenticate without any pre-configuration. This means giving a discovery flow for each type of authorization option (desktop, mobile, web, etc.) with all the parameters needed for