Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type

Stephen Farrell <> Fri, 02 December 2011 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6601B11E807F for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 17:19:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjcDqO6ZCnyN for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 17:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE5F11E80A2 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9121541AF; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 01:19:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1322788774; bh=QC/PLK4DMlPxPa wG4BqIe7gqOnB4WW9IgCVLSCmDew4=; b=hke0Au4BSy7DmVFMkKdjts0VPCEKXq fMLcJ6zqFLRlIVdhYsh6pjLuPUHQrVgW7+5E7RN//Pv0PXH8CDlW7/ULdGt1mDCq mIxgyVnRbHgrQXgARnI5pyxH8b6NivrFxz4iB8kqlqABhKUvDiCgkIE0uvaKKcYU b0UCRoayB//Wt/1vxG+JRjUYrxqSsGty+hk3awvXTeyAziqAziTtwxio73bYtNfK tVYGwOkhD3+XdUL/OHY3WUxp9itFd+HPts3iPiUNOedaZ78tK+NDuDvkU7jSK3zb upc6eo0ariXVI+w5a20oxmRP/pIkDpBMLMzPkm9JwiQLtrGdo4u67KGA==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id NHGzYU-Mt5cK; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 01:19:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 410D9153C7E; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 01:19:33 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:19:32 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Mills <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Barry Leiba <>, oauth WG <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:19:38 -0000

On 12/01/2011 11:37 PM, William Mills wrote:
> Re: "So, pick one (my strong personal preference) or establish and
> document why you're not picking one seem to me to be the choices
> available."
> We don't have discovery done (enough) yet to lean on it in the core spec, but if we did I'd be in favor of something that says that you must implement either an MTI token OR a discovery mechanism that advertises at least one token.  Would that be workable?

Might be, but I think the "if we did" says timing is against that

> We could bang on the discovery stuff in pretty short order I think if we needed to.

Really? Doesn't the WG first need to recharter? We're talking about
how to get the base spec to be an RFC right now, which is a shorter
term thing IMO.


> -bill
> ________________________________
>   From: Stephen Farrell<>
> To: Barry Leiba<>
> Cc: oauth WG<>
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
> Barry, all,
> First, apologies for being so slow responding, various
> travels got in the way. I hope we can quickly resolve this now.
> Bit of process first: at the meeting we discussed this and at the
> end of that discussion, there were quite a few more folks for the
> "pick one" position. People who favour that outcome and really
> care about that need to speak up on the list, since the list
> consensus trumps the sense of the room in the chairs' evaluation
> of the WG consensus.
> Second, at the meeting I said that I'd like to see either MAC or
> bearer picked as MTI, and if not, that I want the draft to say
> why its ok to have no MTI token type. So the WG either need to
> pick one, or else explicitly and convincingly justify not
> picking one. That's the "firm" AD position to which Barry
> referred. (I didn't properly call out the "if not" part of
> that in my AD review, sorry.)
> My own argument for picking one is simple: if every relevant
> piece of code has to know how to handle one then it becomes
> easier to get interop. If everyone decides for themselves
> then interop is less likely since there are currently two
> choices and may be more in future.
> I do realise that the background here and current practice
> is that code tends to be written that is specific to a
> resource server (or however that's best phrased) but that's
> maybe where the IETF differs from the community that produced
> OAuth - here we want two independent implementers who've
> never talked to produce code that interops even so.
> I also realise that that's not the full story for getting
> interop with OAuth and that more is needed. However, this
> aspect is otherwise fully specified and so I don't buy the
> argument that this isn't worth doing just because we don't
> have the full registration story etc. figured out. If we don't
> sort this out now, then later specs will have to update
> this one in this respect. possibly making existing code
> "non-compliant" in some sense, so just going ahead and doing
> it right now is better.
> So, pick one (my strong personal preference) or establish and
> document why you're not picking one seem to me to be the choices
> available.
> Regards,
> Stephen.
> On 11/17/2011 08:28 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Stephen, as AD, brought up the question of mandatory-to-implement
>> token types, in the IETF 82 meeting.  There was some extended
>> discussion on the point:
>> - Stephen is firm in his belief that it's necessary for
>> interoperability.  He notes that mandatory to *implement* is not the
>> same as mandatory to *use*.
>> - Several participants believe that without a mechanism for requesting
>> or negotiating a token type, there is no value in having any type be
>> mandatory to implement.
>> Stephen is happy to continue the discussion on the list, and make his
>> point clear.  In any case, there was clear consensus in the room that
>> we *should* specify a mandatory-to-implement type, and that that type
>> be bearer tokens.  This would be specified in the base document, and
>> would make a normative reference from the base doc to the bearer token
>> doc.
>> We need to confirm that consensus on the mailing list, so this starts
>> the discussion.  Let's work on resolving this over the next week or
>> so, and moving forward:
>> 1. Should we specify some token type as mandatory to implement?  Why
>> or why not (*briefly*)?
>> 2. If we do specify one, which token type should it be?
>> Barry, as chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list