With MAC, you should be able to re-use about 80-90% of your existing
codepath that's in place for Bearer, simplifying the setup below.
I would figure that the "variant of OAuth2" issue is a red herring
because not everyone out there is fully spec compliant. If they were,
you wouldn't have so many beautiful snowflakes.
-- Justin
On 08/09/2012 03:48 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
As an implementer, I have an app that accesses 10 different resources.
Some are OAuth 1.0A, some are a variant of OAuth 2. All have a
slightly different code path since each resource is its own beautiful
snowflake. I did not use any libraries for OAuth 2. Supporting MAC
would give me yet another library to integrate with.
I'd be interested in what signing problems OAuth 1.0A has. I have my
own list of how writing to OAuth 1.0A is hard.
On Aug 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM, 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 Aa
*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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
