[standards-jig] JEP-0070 & JEP-0101

Matthew A. Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com
Thu Jun 26 17:24:13 UTC 2003

You are STILL failing to see the point.  You SHOULD have contacted me,
or the JEP editor SHOULD NOT have allowed this through.

I will consider JEP-0101 to be feedback for JEP-0070, and change it
accordingly.  If you have an issue with that, then you should have
contacted me sooner.

-  LW  

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 10:13, Richard Dobson wrote:
> It seems you still fail to understand, my mechanism is more of a generic
> single sign on, yours as you state in your reply is HTTP transactions
> prompted directly from Jabber, mine is the reverse and IMO an essentially
> different system, so different in fact that it required a new JEP. Now ill
> spell out here the primary difference that mean that they are completely
> different.
> Primary dfference
> ---
> JEP-0070 - The url you are accessing must have been received in some form as
> a response to an action in Jabber, otherwise you do not have a context (JID)
> to request the auth from.
> JEP-0101 - The url you are accessing can be anything, and does not in anyway
> have to be from your Jabber session, you can just be generally browsing a
> JabberTicket enabled website and enter a protected page, and if the user so
> desires they can be automatically logged into the website without having to
> enter any username or password details, their JID will automatically be
> used, so this is in essense a single sign on method which can be extended to
> far more than HTTP if required, your method is simply too finely focused to
> be able to work as a single sign on method.
> So because of this fundamental difference IMO a new JEP had to be created
> whether you had helped or not.
> Richard
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Matthew A. Miller" <linuxwolf at outer-planes.no-ip.com>
> To: <standards-jig at jabber.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [standards-jig] JEP-0070 & JEP-0101
> > One of my former employers used to tell me, "Never assume, because you
> > make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'."  This seems a most appropriate
> > response.
> >
> > your assumptions are wrong.  The goal of JEP-0070 was to authorize HTTP
> > transactions via Jabber.  This is clearly stated in the heading,
> > abstract, and first section.  Where exactly you receive the URL from is
> > inconsequential.  I only used "jabber:x:oob" and "jabber:iq:oob" as
> > examples because they are immediately identifiable as possible routes
> > for receiving a URL.
> >
> > You could have looked for previous works, and contacted those authors.
> > I would have been more than happy to work with you on this, if you had
> > only asked.  Instead, we now have two JEPs that mostly similar
> > mechanisms to reach the same goal.
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
JID:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
E-MAIL:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net

- Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)

More information about the Standards mailing list