+1
finishing a draft for historical reasons without the full context of HoK
use-cases and identified threats concerns me
In Vancouver the question was asked about the future of the MAC spec
due to it no linger having a editor.
The Chair and AD indicated a desire to have a document on the
use-cases we are trying to address before deciding on progressing MAC
or starting a new document.
Phil Hunt is going to put together a summery of the Vancouver
discussion and we are going to work on the use-case/problem
description document ASAP.
People are welcome to contribute to the use-case document.
Part of the problem with MAC has been that people could never agree on
what it was protecting against.
I think there is general agreement that one or more proof mechanisms
are required for access tokens.
Security for the token endpoint also cannot be ignored.
John B.
On 2012-08-09, at 1:53 PM, William Mills wrote:
MAC fixes the signing problems encountered in OAuth 1.0a, yes there
are libraries out there for OAuth 1.0a. MAC fits in to the OAuth 2
auth model and will provide for a single codepath for sites that want
to use both Bearer and MAC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com <mailto:dick.ha...@gmail.com>>
*To:* William Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com
<mailto:wmills_92...@yahoo.com>>
*Cc:* "oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org
<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
*Sent:* Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:27 AM
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] mistake in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-01
On Aug 9, 2012, at 9:52 AM, William Mills wrote:
I find the idea of starting from scratch frustrating. MAC solves a
set of specific problems and has a well defined use case. It's
symmetric key based which doesn't work for some folks, and the
question is do we try to develop something that supports both PK and
SK, or finish the SK use case and then work on a PK based draft.
I think it's better to leave them separate and finish out MAC which
is *VERY CLOSE* to being done.
Who is interested in MAC? People can use OAuth 1.0 if they prefer
that model.
For my projects, I prefer the flexibility of a signed or encrypted
JWT if I need holder of key.
Just my $.02
-- Dick
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
