LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  September 2010

CODE4LIB September 2010

Subject:

Re: Looking for OAuth experts

From:

Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:49:09 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (164 lines)

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:21 PM, MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ross Singer wrote:
>> Agreed on this assessment, Jonathan.  MJ, can you extrapolate on your
>> concerns, because that Ars Technica article is not going to cut it for
>> anything more than to avoid the choices that Twitter made.
>
> I've just sent another message trying to do that.  Hope it helps.

Yes.  Well, at any rate it helps me refine my problem statement some.

The concern about distributed apps (while legitimate) doesn't worry me
quite so much in this particular case.  The main use case we would be
looking to solve is for known applications to access (and, depending
on how trusted they are, manipulate) confidential (again, according to
the level of trust) user information in an ILS without needing to
store their credentials.

If there is an added bonus of being to use it for all sorts of other,
distributed applications, so much the better, but if that's not viable
or secure, it's no problem since it would be outside of the necessary
requirements, anyway.
>
>> And even by the standards of that article, I'm not sure that OAuth is
>> inappropriate for the ILS-DI's use cases which are:
>>
>> 1) server-to-server communication as the first priority
>> 2) something relatively standardized and abstracted enough to allow
>> for institutions' local authentication mechanisms.
>
> I think FOSS servers would be affected by the published-key spoofing
> flaw too, wouldn't they?
>
There are open source OAuth server implementations out there, I assume
there's some local salt-ing going on.

Another key difference between ILS-DI's use case and a service like
Twitter's is that, from the start, the expectation can be set that
only whitelisted clients have access.  I'm not sure if Johns Hopkins
or Stanford or NYPL cares much if there's a teeming app marketplace
that can be built on top of their ILS API as much as simple and
consistent access from their discovery interfaces, courseware,
electronic reserves application, etc..

The very attributes that may make OAuth questionable for services like
Twitter, Facebook, and their ilk may be non-factors for an ILS API
simply because the environment can be much more controlled.

The problem would be that if, indeed, these flaws do undermine public
support for OAuth, the advantages it brings (client/server libraries,
awareness outside of very library-specific domains) would be lost if
there's no community using it.

> Some of the projects that want to support ILS-DI are FOSS - one of the
> Koha support companies signed some ILS-DI announcement IIRC, while
> another wrote some of the code to implement it.
>
>> Which basically spells out the problem the ILS-DI group is facing:  an
>> incomplete, but evolving standard with heavy industry support, or...
>> nothing.
>
> Glad to see it's recognised that OAuth is incomplete.
>
Really all that's recognized is that it exists and is one of the only,
if not the only, protocol that allows for the decentralization of
auth/authz without the client service needing to manage personal
credentials.

That's not necessarily an ILS-DI requirement, but it sure would be
useful if we had it.

> I've heard as much opposition as support among developers.  On the one
> hand, it's more work to sell.  On the other, they're now even more at
> the mercy of big service providers who can break their applications
> (and so eat their support budgets) at will.
>

Unlike Twitter, however, we're starting from nothing.  There's nothing
currently invested in ILS-DI clients that would break by committing
solely to OAuth (or anything, for that matter).

If there is broad language support to build clients and servers, this
should be less of an issue.

>> We are still very much in the fact-gathering stage, so any suggestions
>> are welcome.  [...]
>
> If the problem that the group is trying to solve was explained on this
> list, readers might be able to offer suggestions.
>
Jonathan gave a pretty good summary, but I'll tack on.

The ILS-DI initiative was initially proposed by the digital library
federation to provide following functionality out of integrated
library systems:

Level 1: Basic Discovery Interfaces
 * HarvestBibliographicRecords
 * HarvestExpandedRecords
 * GetAvailability
 * GoToBibliographicRequestPage

Level 2: Elementary OPAC supplement
All of the above, plus
 * HarvestAuthorityRecords
 * HarvestHoldingsRecords
 * GetRecord
 * Search
 * Scan
 * GetAuthorityRecords
 * Either OutputRewritablePage or OutputIntermediateFormat

Level 3: Elementary OPAC alternative
All of the above, plus
 * LookupPatron
 * AuthenticatePatron
 * GetPatronInfo
 * GetPatronStatus
 * GetServices
 * RenewLoan
 * HoldTitle
 * HoldItem
 * CancelHold
 * RecallItem
 * CancelRecall

Level 4: Robust/domain specific discovery platforms
All of the above, plus
 * SearchCourseReserves
 * Explain
 * Both OutputRewritablePage and OutputIntermediateFormat

It's no longer under the auspices of the DLF and the priority of
functionality has changed.  We're now focused first on:

 * GetAvailability
 * LookupPatron
 * AuthenticatePatron
 * GetPatronInfo
 * GetPatronStatus
 * GetServices
 * RenewLoan
 * HoldTitle
 * HoldItem
 * CancelHold
 * RecallItem
 * CancelRecall

(basically, the old Level 3 functions + Level 1's "GetAvailability").
The baseline right now is to get this functionality via the XC NCIP
Toolkit (http://code.google.com/p/xcnciptoolkit/).  It's unclear what
the final API will look like (that is, whether it will be the NCIP
toolkit's API or some abstraction layer on top of it).

The primary use case for these functions is for discovery systems (a
la Summon, VuFind, etc.) to be able to interact with the ILS just like
the bundled OPAC, but any application that interacts with the ILS
(reserves systems, courseware, portals, etc.) could be considered if
its needs are similar enough.

> Hope that helps,
Indeed, and I hope the reply was likewise helpful.

Thanks,
-Ross.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager