- From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 13:44:12 +0000
- To: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Zed A. Shaw" <zedshaw@zedshaw.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, websec <websec@ietf.org>, "kitten@ietf.org" <kitten@ietf.org>, "http-auth@ietf.org" <http-auth@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 January 2011 01:29, Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 January 2011 11:49, Zed A. Shaw <zedshaw@zedshaw.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:37:00AM -0800, Blaine Cook wrote: >> I don't normally respond, just being a lurker, but this statement is >> competely wrong Blaine. OAuth may be used for more requests, but not >> more sites. It's used on a tiny number of sites, with OpenID being used >> on way many more, and even then, not nowhere near the number of websites >> that form based authentication and browser authentication methods. >> >> Don't equate twitter having a ton of traffic to OAuth being some kind of >> raving success, and sure as hell don't evaluate the technical merits of >> something by its popularity. > > Agreed - though, facebook is also using oauth-based (not 1.0, but > essentially the same approach) logins, and there are a number of other > sites that do provide oauth-based login infrastructure. > > Moreover, the nudge towards oauth is intended with the movement > towards a new auth infrastructure in mind. We'd need some kind of > discovery / negotiation mechanism on top to make it not the > one-or-two-companies-own-the-web play that login-over-oauth is now. > (c.f. OpenID Connect). > > b. > >> While I agree that TLS client side isn't going to work, none of the >> proposed authentication methods will work without a change to browsers >> to support a way for two websites to establish a session in the browser. >> If that feature existed you would cut down on a lot of the complexity of >> things like OpenID and OAuth. > > Again, agreed. ;-) > > for the record, I don't think that OAuth itself is a suitable > replacement for HTTP authorisation, but wanted to stir the pot, > especially away from overwrought technical solutions that don't > actually solve anyone's needs. Towards ones that are ripe for phishing and have no privacy protections? I don't believe that's a good direction.
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2011 13:44:42 UTC